Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin started by keiths


Posted by: keiths on Oct. 31 2012,02:32

Have at it, Gary.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 31 2012,05:10

Gary,
Wiki notes:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In your conclusion in the PDF (the Theory of ID) you linked to you say:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rather than abiogenesis which is de?ned as biological life arising from inorganic matter this theory ?nds in favor of (intelligence from intelligence) biogenesis. The ?rst living thing might not even be quali?ed as a living thing using a metric that needs abiogenesis in its logical construct. Although both words reduce to the same event, biogenesis is here more precise
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did I miss the "verify" or "falsify" bit then?


Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2012,07:10

Any testable predictions for ID?

And have you verified all your thoughts on ID with JoeG?  Because, he'll ignore you if you're wrong about ID or he'll stalk you for two years and beat you up.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 31 2012,07:40

Gary,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You say "best explained". Does that mean there is a competing explanation that you've ruled out?

Care to explain how you did that?

Also if only "certain features" of living things are designed, where did the rest come from?

What's the difference between a feature that evolved and a feature that was designed and how do you tell?

Can you give an example of where you have made that determination and more importantly, show your working?

No? Thought not. Carry on.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2012,07:49

Once again, it appears that an ID proponent wishes to be a concern troll rather than talk about their notions.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Oct. 31 2012,10:23

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,07:10)
Any testable predictions for ID?

And have you verified all your thoughts on ID with JoeG?  Because, he'll ignore you if you're wrong about ID or he'll stalk you for two years and beat you up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to condemn or anything but the way it works out this is for real providing an explaining for how “intelligent cause” works that you are either a part of helping to make happen or on the sidelines jeering with what amounts to philosophical easy ways out of having to yourself have to present better cognitive theory, than what was so far presented in the other thread here:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y211653 >

For more on my reasons why I have to see it that way is this from the How a Theory Works to explain your philosophical dilemma that has you on the other side of science by expecting useful theory to meet an untested philosophical conclusion that best describes what a hypothesis is for (true or false statement that goes one way or another from an experiment):

< https://sites.google.com/site....rks.doc >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Gary Gaulin, 2011
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS

Although there are many “proper definitions” the primary difference between a hypothesis (also stated as a "research question") and a theory is that a hypothesis is a testable true/false statement (or brief question) which might be only an untested educated guess.  For example the observation that water increases in density as it cools infers "Ice is denser than water." while scientific theory explains hydrogen bonds which make ice less dense than liquid water which in turn will "predict" that this intuitive hypothesis is false.

A theory is a coherent explanation of a phenomenon, and will contain a number of hypotheses all explained together. In origin of life (abiogenesis) theory are a number of hypotheses and possible "worlds" like RNA World, DNA World, Metabolic World and Protein World. A theory does not ask a true/false question then perform a quick experiment to see whether it holds true or not, theory explains how a phenomenon such as "abiogenesis" or "intelligent cause" works and cannot be answered with a question a theory predicts its answer.

HOW A SCIENTIFIC THEORY WORKS

A “scientific theory” is a coherent explanation of how a phenomenon works. For a theory to be coherent there must be experiments (computer model, observation) to test all conclusions.

The "premise" of a theory is a statement that in as few words as possible sums up the phenomenon to be explained.  Whatever else that is to be said must be made irrelevant otherwise it is too easy to allow rumor and misinterpretations to define a proposed theory instead of its premise.

This is the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design:

Source: Discovery Institute   < http://www.discovery.org/csc....ons.php >
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.

The phrase "intelligent cause" is the name of the phenomenon to be explained.  The text of the theory “defines” intelligent cause to be similar to "emergent" causation.  The mechanism producing this emergence must here be explained as an "intelligent" phenomenon for it to be a coherent theory, hence "intelligent cause".

In science something either exists or it does not.  The word “supernatural” has no meaning other than the “unknown” or “unexplained”.  Therefore no part of the premise or text of a theory may be given supernatural meaning, by anyone on any side of a controversy.

The word terminology used in each theory should reflect the areas of science of the phenomenon they cover, not each other.  As a result the Theory Of Intelligent Design is an “origin of life” theory that requires terminology found primarily in robotics and Artificial Intelligence and never once mentions or borrows from Evolutionary Theory.

Words may not be used synonymously with each other unless the premise or the text of the theory makes it clear that both words are interchangeable.  For example to falsely suggest that “intelligent cause” must be one of a number of deities explained in religious scriptures the word “cause” is often replaced using the word “agent” to produce the new phrase “intelligent agent” which can then be defined as they please to suit their argument.  The only scientific response is to state that the rules do not allow this here, therefore a scientific reply is impossible and cannot be given until they rephrase their statement using terminology found in its premise (or where applicable the text of the theory).

All theories are “tentative” therefore can never be “proven true” or can be a “fact”.  When tested a theory can only be “proven false” in which case it is incoherent, or again “holds true” in which case it remains a coherent theory.  As is the case of Superstring Theory it is coherent enough to be a viable and “useful” theory even though there are known to be incoherencies in areas that are still being researched.

Karl Popper is known for applying philosophy to science to argue against the prevailing views of the scientific method by advancing empirical “falsification”.  This made for a useful debate as to what science is.  But in reality, finding a rabbit fossil from the Cambrian era would certainly puzzle scientists but the genetic algorithm models would still work fine.  Therefore the “theory of evolution” would not be thrown right out of science just because of incoherence in a small part of the fossil record.  One has to “believe” that falsification was good enough, which is a judgment call that easily leads to endless unproductive argument that can slow down even stop a theory from being written when critics automatically refuse any falsification no matter how good it is. Though there are many ways to as per Karl Popper falsify the Theory Of Intelligent Design it would be beyond the purpose of this writing to present all of that here.

For a theory to be “useful” it must make “predictions”.  Otherwise it is “useless”.  There is no requirement there be a list of them included in the text of the theory.  But predictions should be included where they help explain what to look for in an experiment.

The scientific information is placed in a “logical construct” that provides a place for everything, to make it easy to put everything in its proper place.  For example in this theory each emergent level of organization has its own “section” each with four “subsections” which represent the four requirements for “intelligence” and the first requirement is “something to control” such as robot motors, biological body, or at the molecular scale controlling cellular functions

The second part of the premise that follows the comma "not an undirected process such as natural selection." describes what the theory does not explain as the cause.  We can here remove this part from the sentence leaving us only the part it does have to explain which is “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,”

To make it easier to gauge how closely the theory is following its premise the shortened sentence is completed by adding a short summation of what the theory can conclude pertaining to the phenomenon of intelligent cause.  When we are on the right track there is a complete sentence that makes more sense together. When we are on the wrong track the sentence makes less sense together.  In the case of a theory breaking a rule of science such as "...an intelligent cause that is supernatural therefore it cannot be tested" we can see right away that it is not a scientific theory, repeatable experiments to test the phenomenon must be possible from the explanation.

In a discipline such as science most are conditioned to do things one certain way using established theories.  This can make it appear that a new one is not needed.  It will then be ignored.  To help prevent this complacency the rules of science do not allow dismissing a theory based on what was previously said about it.  But at the time it does not always seem worth taking seriously.  When almost all are doing the same it appears to be impossible for all to be wrong.  Authors here work very hard and probably endure ridicule for their “unaccepted” theory to eventually become “accepted” which might not even be in their lifetime.

An existing theory is never evidence for or evidence against another.  Where each explain entirely different phenomenon it is possible for both to be coherent.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You now need to have a better explanation for how “intelligent cause” works that does better with computer programmers and others who know useful science when they see it too.  

The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too.  Better that than not having the support of computer programmers on up to the greatest of scientists who would be impressed by something coming out of all this, after all.  I'll next try to explain that part of it, but brings us to Kansas and Dover and is a many years long project I will do my best to sum up in a million words or less.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 31 2012,10:48

"Internet" Tard tires to redefine "science" using a lot "of" quotation "marks" in the "process".

Can I keep him?


Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 31 2012,11:11

Oh the comments are great:

< http://www.planet-source-code.com/vb....ngWId=1 >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 31 2012,11:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Fer'instance?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 31 2012,11:32

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 31 2012,11:11)
Oh the comments are great:

< http://www.planet-source-code.com/vb....n....ngWId=1 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm giving him 10/10 for effort however. TBH other then a book I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone else actually attempt to do something to support ID.

While I can wait for Gary's paper:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Major science journal article is now in writing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That some actual code actually exists is fantastic.

Not sure what relevance it has TBH to anything but fuck, other then implementations of Weasel that Dembski got his lackey to code up what else is there?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 31 2012,11:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This next generation Intelligence Generator (also on Planet Source Code) computer model is (as per Occam’s Razor) made to be as simple as possible to reduce all that is happening in a complex biological circuit of an intelligent living thing to what is most important to understand about the way self-learning intelligence works, in this case a compound eye insect. The program provides a precise and testable operational definition for “intelligence” where taking all sensors out of memory addressing demonstrates "protointelligence", while clicking out its Red Green Blue vision subsystems from both confidence and memory renders it completely “unintelligent” in which case it only expresses Brownian motion type random behavior. The computer model also provides a precise, testable and scientifically useful operational definition for "intelligent cause" where each of the three emergent levels can be individually modeled, with a model predicted to be possible that generates an intelligent causation event, now goal of further research and challenge for all. Applying this model to biology shows advantages of a two lobed brain over a single lobe that would have to be much larger to control the same amount of sensory input. This model also provides insight into the origin of life, intelligence, and mechanisms that produces new species including human which was found to be systematically the primary result of good-guess chromosome speciation from fusion of two ancestral chromosomes which created our second largest. The code is useful for game engines and other applications that require virtual intelligence, is relatively well commented, has on-screen tool-tip-text, and 30 pages of referenced documentation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 31 2012,11:39

ah, sorry Gary, I take it all back!

VB indeed...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 31 2012,11:40

hush now Ras


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and 30 pages of referenced documentation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you *KNOW* how much dFSCI there is in 30+ pages of documentation?

Therefore ID!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2012,12:32

So your saying that the philosophical underpinnings of science are all wrong?

Interesting that you are using a computer and probably wireless to communicate to me that science is all wrong.

Let's start small however.  Describe ID in your own words.
Posted by: fnxtr on Oct. 31 2012,12:48

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,10:32)
So your saying that the philosophical underpinnings of science are all wrong?

Interesting that you are using a computer and probably wireless to communicate to me that science is all wrong.

Let's start small however.  Describe ID in your own words.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Said the orca to the seal pup.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 31 2012,14:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As an innocent bystander, I would be more interested in the interface between the intelligence - whatever that is - and the world.

I've tried magic but that didn't work for me.

Do we need a director to set the direction? Stones roll, where is the director? Isn't nature itself setting the 'direction'?

I suspect I may be at a level far below where your intellect soars.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 31 2012,14:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The word terminology used in each theory should reflect the areas of science of the phenomenon they cover, not each other.  As a result the Theory Of Intelligent Design is an “origin of life” theory that requires terminology found primarily in robotics and Artificial Intelligence and never once mentions or borrows from Evolutionary Theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What if all the other creationists disagree with your word terminology?  I'll spot you "poof".
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Oct. 31 2012,14:51

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 31 2012,05:10)
Gary,
Wiki notes:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In your conclusion in the PDF (the Theory of ID) you linked to you say:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rather than abiogenesis which is de?ned as biological life arising from inorganic matter this theory ?nds in favor of (intelligence from intelligence) biogenesis. The ?rst living thing might not even be quali?ed as a living thing using a metric that needs abiogenesis in its logical construct. Although both words reduce to the same event, biogenesis is here more precise
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did I miss the "verify" or "falsify" bit then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The "falsify" bit wore itself out, but the "verify" part of a theory which comes before the conclusion (not where you were are supposed to begin) is vital and must explain a way for others to take it from there, as Charles Darin did by explaining his theory to others than was crapped on by Owens and most all other greatnesses of science of his day who tried to discredit him out of science therefore it took 30 years before the scientific community even cared about him or his theory.  Important thing is to find the people who actually need such a theory and are willing to help verify that it is indeed good science, because that is not a one person job and trying to make it seem that way is politics not science.

In this case what now stands to be verified by others and already did great so far, looks exactly like this:



< http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1 >

What is explained above either makes sense to all in that field in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it.  But you have to empirically contradict ("falsify") it, not oblige me to an endless cycle that makes it seem I have to do that just because of something dug up in a conclusion that makes for a good semantics argument but ignores all the rest that is above it, that is already doing fine being fairly judged where it should be most useful and appreciated in reality if they did not like it too then the science theory part goes nowhere anywhere.  At PNAS or Nature where the audience is expecting lab experiments that produce supernatural deities and other nonsense the issue is not an original computer model that does in fact allow the experimentation with what scientifically qualifies as “intelligent cause” at a place where there is a large volume of physics and other science related programs written in Visual Basic, where it fits right in with all the rest that’s there to for-real keep how-to experimenters busy on things that have never been tried before.  That is what verifies the model and theory works for them too, and they sure don't mind the credit for being the birthplace of the theory that was supposed to have been impossible, that was actually long ago in embryonic stage right here with the Intelligence Generator:

< http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1 >

Part of that is being “citizen science” that even residents of York/Dover who most hated ID helped put together, in their local media forum.

< http://exchange.ydr.com/index.p....-online >

I always included Kansas, where Kathy Martin has all long been having fun with science too with no need to worry about places like this forum.  There is no longer great need for her to make an issue of it at a board of education public hearing.  She only has to be kept informed and knows how well the theory is doing these days where it most matters, and I know she’s happy with how things are going (even though not even I can change where the scientific evidence leads).

< http://www.kcfs.org/phpBB3.....1&t=758 >

To be religiously real (without going out of bounds of science) I made an illustration with famous artwork as a pointer:



From the “citizen” level the controversy is being quietly ended with the Theory of Intelligent Design winning, but not over Creationism or Creation Science that the above illustration is most properly for, which was a problem that got the Discovery Institute in what has been called a “turf-war” that made it unpopular with Creationists who need an honorable Adam and Eve established in science and Genesis friendliness or to them too it's just window dressing the Darwinian paradigm.  

This is the real thing, what science does allow, and Darwinian theory is not even supposed to be a cognitive theory to explain intelligence like this so can't explain it at all therefore this is no doubt the best explanation there is for all that.  Just have to accept, that at least for some of us, this is very serious science where ones who get all shook up over it are no surprise...
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 31 2012,14:56

Without getting too verbose, how is intelligent learning different from evolution?
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 31 2012,15:09

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,10:32)
Let's start small however.  Describe ID in your own words.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Words should be fine.  However:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The "falsify" bit wore itself out, but the "verify" part of a theory which comes before the conclusion (not where you were are supposed to begin) is vital and must explain a way for others to take it from there, as Charles Darin did by explaining his theory to others than was crapped on by Owens and most all other greatnesses of science of his day who tried to discredit him out of science therefore it took 30 years before the scientific community even cared about him or his theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It looks like sentences might be a problem.
Posted by: khan on Oct. 31 2012,15:20

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 31 2012,16:09)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,10:32)
Let's start small however.  Describe ID in your own words.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Words should be fine.  However:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The "falsify" bit wore itself out, but the "verify" part of a theory which comes before the conclusion (not where you were are supposed to begin) is vital and must explain a way for others to take it from there, as Charles Darin did by explaining his theory to others than was crapped on by Owens and most all other greatnesses of science of his day who tried to discredit him out of science therefore it took 30 years before the scientific community even cared about him or his theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It looks like sentences might be a problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It looks like sentences might be a problem.

There is that.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Oct. 31 2012,16:16

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 31 2012,15:09)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,10:32)
Let's start small however.  Describe ID in your own words.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Words should be fine.  However:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The "falsify" bit wore itself out, but the "verify" part of a theory which comes before the conclusion (not where you were are supposed to begin) is vital and must explain a way for others to take it from there, as Charles Darin did by explaining his theory to others than was crapped on by Owens and most all other greatnesses of science of his day who tried to discredit him out of science therefore it took 30 years before the scientific community even cared about him or his theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It looks like sentences might be a problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm lost without the edit button to get the last minute typos that show up so well when seen on the screen.  And I'm known for big sentences that are a part from defensive action against quote-mining a single sentence that that needs others to make a complete thought, but I try not to go overboard.  Also can admit I have the writing skills needed for programming and forums but figuring out how to explain all this in a science paper gets complicated real fast.  Soon need to get back to the coding and other things that are behind schedule as a result.  But I would rather have something new online to experiment with that only needs to be properly coded and commented, than a small number of obsessed over pages of literary masterpiece explaining what we already have.  It's like I mentioned in the other thread, and hope it did not come out rude, that I have to stay focused on the science and not worry about the hundred or so years of work already on the back burner that I will no-way have all done by this weekend either.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2012,16:50

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 31 2012,16:16)
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 31 2012,15:09)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,10:32)
Let's start small however.  Describe ID in your own words.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Words should be fine.  However:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The "falsify" bit wore itself out, but the "verify" part of a theory which comes before the conclusion (not where you were are supposed to begin) is vital and must explain a way for others to take it from there, as Charles Darin did by explaining his theory to others than was crapped on by Owens and most all other greatnesses of science of his day who tried to discredit him out of science therefore it took 30 years before the scientific community even cared about him or his theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It looks like sentences might be a problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm lost without the edit button to get the last minute typos that show up so well when seen on the screen.  And I'm known for big sentences that are a part from defensive action against quote-mining a single sentence that that needs others to make a complete thought, but I try not to go overboard.  Also can admit I have the writing skills needed for programming and forums but figuring out how to explain all this in a science paper gets complicated real fast.  Soon need to get back to the coding and other things that are behind schedule as a result.  But I would rather have something new online to experiment with that only needs to be properly coded and commented, than a small number of obsessed over pages of literary masterpiece explaining what we already have.  It's like I mentioned in the other thread, and hope it did not come out rude, that I have to stay focused on the science and not worry about the hundred or so years of work already on the back burner that I will no-way have all done by this weekend either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's the thing.  If you can't explain it simply, then you either a) don't understand it well yourself or b) don't have the skills to get it into a science paper format.

There's nothing wrong with either of those.  But if you read the science journals, the prose is very, very simple.  Yes, the terminology is very complex, but the prose is simple.  

"We did x with y."  "We used x process to modify the gene Y."  etc.

Now, let's see if I can help.  DO you agree with or disagree with the following (and feel free to make comments).

1) 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.

2) the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence

3) The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

4) Intelligent design (ID) is the empirically testable theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.

5) Intelligent design is a belief that the universe could not have been created by chance and that some higher-power must have had a hand in creating the universe.

With the understood caveat that some of the information in these definitions may be fundamentally wrong (i.e. 1 says that natural selection is an undirected process.  Depending on how one defines 'undirected' this may or may not be a true statement).
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 31 2012,17:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is the real thing, what science does allow, and Darwinian theory is not even supposed to be a cognitive theory to explain intelligence like this so can't explain it at all therefore this is no doubt the best explanation there is for all that.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So in what sense is Joe right then?
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 31 2012,17:45

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 31 2012,14:16)
I'm lost without the edit button to get the last minute typos that show up so well when seen on the screen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The problem isn't typos, Gary.  It's incoherence.  As OgreMkV said, either you're stating your ideas incoherently, or the ideas themselves are incoherent.  Or both.

Unless you can either figure out what you're trying to say, or express it more clearly, this isn't going to be much of a discussion.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Oct. 31 2012,18:15

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 31 2012,14:56)
Without getting too verbose, how is intelligent learning different from evolution?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a good question and another way to describe it is "evolution" and all that Charles Darwin explained is that things change over time and where some things are made gone they're gone.  Might be insight to someone who didn't already know that, but it's not theory that predicts what this is for and makes one go Ah ha! and Eureka!


< http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehl....ome.htm >

The theory is for systems biology and predicts a system architecture of a molecular cognitive system at work in cells, to account for their being such a tenacious self-learning survivor.  From there it's connecting to origin of life on into String Theory, and other way on to cellular then human origins and intelligence all with the same simple core model where once you understand how it works you know why intelligence is something to respect because of its all controlling behavior and all else just something that happens because of the way it works.

Here's what it looks like when applied at the collective intelligence level in robots.  Note the way they describe how "guess" and such is used to produce new knowledge between them:

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....ByLkK14 >

So to an earlier good question from the other thread, yes it will clean your floors, if it wants to.  There are ways of making want a certain thing, but make it too smart and too clean it might figure out how to end that problem by getting rid of the humans making all the messes in the first place.  

You're probably safer with a non-intelligent AI with 2D math equation that covers the floor space and is programmed to stop for humans, as opposed to having to learn to do so by fighting with them enough times they leave you alone for a while.  This model very seriously has a mind of its own, that has to itself want to dance or it's not going to, which is very bad where it gets sensory overwhelmed then stage fright has it running away.  

This model ending up being normally unpredictable like this is one of the things that lets you know it's not Artificial Intelligence which is great at cleaning floors and dancing at the push of a button but it's not the real thing where there is very visibly a mind of its own that inherently tries to control all it can.  This will not obey commands, unless it wants to.  A buyer beware would certainly need to be included with that one.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 31 2012,18:21

Gary, you really need to focus on writing better. Keep your sentences shorter and less wandering.

Also



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But you have to empirically contradict ("falsify") it, not oblige me to an endless cycle that makes it seem I have to do that
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, in science, the burden is on the guy with the new paradigm. He has to prove it's more useful than the old paradigm.

ID needs people (1)creating an actual model, (2)using it to generate specific predictions about the real world, (3)collecting data, (4) using the data to further refine the model.

Instead, it's stuck at step (0), which is having people clueless about biology babble on web sites. That's all its done for 20 years, and accomplished nothing, because it's just creationism, which is scientifically worthless.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Oct. 31 2012,19:32

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,16:50)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 31 2012,16:16)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 31 2012,15:09)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,10:32)
Let's start small however.  Describe ID in your own words.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Words should be fine.  However:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The "falsify" bit wore itself out, but the "verify" part of a theory which comes before the conclusion (not where you were are supposed to begin) is vital and must explain a way for others to take it from there, as Charles Darin did by explaining his theory to others than was crapped on by Owens and most all other greatnesses of science of his day who tried to discredit him out of science therefore it took 30 years before the scientific community even cared about him or his theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It looks like sentences might be a problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm lost without the edit button to get the last minute typos that show up so well when seen on the screen.  And I'm known for big sentences that are a part from defensive action against quote-mining a single sentence that that needs others to make a complete thought, but I try not to go overboard.  Also can admit I have the writing skills needed for programming and forums but figuring out how to explain all this in a science paper gets complicated real fast.  Soon need to get back to the coding and other things that are behind schedule as a result.  But I would rather have something new online to experiment with that only needs to be properly coded and commented, than a small number of obsessed over pages of literary masterpiece explaining what we already have.  It's like I mentioned in the other thread, and hope it did not come out rude, that I have to stay focused on the science and not worry about the hundred or so years of work already on the back burner that I will no-way have all done by this weekend either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's the thing.  If you can't explain it simply, then you either a) don't understand it well yourself or b) don't have the skills to get it into a science paper format.

There's nothing wrong with either of those.  But if you read the science journals, the prose is very, very simple.  Yes, the terminology is very complex, but the prose is simple.  

"We did x with y."  "We used x process to modify the gene Y."  etc.

Now, let's see if I can help.  DO you agree with or disagree with the following (and feel free to make comments).

1) 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.

2) the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence

3) The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

4) Intelligent design (ID) is the empirically testable theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.

5) Intelligent design is a belief that the universe could not have been created by chance and that some higher-power must have had a hand in creating the universe.

With the understood caveat that some of the information in these definitions may be fundamentally wrong (i.e. 1 says that natural selection is an undirected process.  Depending on how one defines 'undirected' this may or may not be a true statement).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The premise, as stated by the Discovery Institute and now on the "public record" as one sentence only, is in my signature line.  All else you presented are rewordings that are irrelevant to discussion.

And it's not that I cannot easily enough write a paper like you are describing, the problem is it's a lot of theory and gets into what has been going in Dover and all over these days and all else I hate to even get into but is incomplete without.  It keeps forever changing never looking quite right, end up frustrated and just need to get away from it or will just get worse with more work.  But if you can fit all I have been saying and the rest of the theory in a journal length article then you or someone else can second coauthor it.  My problem is I'm me, not you, and the theory needs source code exchange not lab result research paper.  It's in a way a formality I am being dragged into because of some thinking my job too on top of all else that already publicly states Theory of Intelligent Design not allowed, that seriously makes me wonder whether a science journal paper is a waste of time to begin with right now.  Model and theory is already here.  And no science journal can change that fact.  So I'm honestly not sure what purpose you expect the publishing of the news in top journal will even serve.  It's too late for tribunal and don't need to show up for a journal inquisition, unless I want to, and at the moment I don't.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Oct. 31 2012,20:03

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 31 2012,18:21)
Gary, you really need to focus on writing better. Keep your sentences shorter and less wandering.

Also



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But you have to empirically contradict ("falsify") it, not oblige me to an endless cycle that makes it seem I have to do that
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, in science, the burden is on the guy with the new paradigm. He has to prove it's more useful than the old paradigm.

ID needs people (1)creating an actual model, (2)using it to generate specific predictions about the real world, (3)collecting data, (4) using the data to further refine the model.

Instead, it's stuck at step (0), which is having people clueless about biology babble on web sites. That's all its done for 20 years, and accomplished nothing, because it's just creationism, which is scientifically worthless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll remember to keep the sentences small.  And all the other good advice.  At the moment though I'm fighting exhaustion.  My grammar then declines rapidly.  But it seems like you and others know that I'm making sense, and can relax for a while.  

The problem with a journal article is not knowing where to begin explaining all this there, or why.  But it's not like it's an impossible problem to solve.  It's just more frustrating than you can imagine.  At least the pdf shows where I'm currently at in that effort, to show some progress has been made.  It's not like I don't try, that's for sure.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2012,20:07

That's what I was afraid of.  Again, you do realize that the statement promoted by ID is simply wrong?

Anyway, ok.  Now for the next bit.  To have an intelligent cause, you need an intelligence.  What is it?
Posted by: Doc Bill on Oct. 31 2012,21:26

Hi, Gary!

Happy to see you return to planet Earth, sort of.

However, you seem to still be a fucking moron.

Sorry about that.  I highly recommend alcoholism as a treatment.  Contact Joe G and the other denizens of UD for details.

Fuck you and a pox on you, you pretentious twit,

Doc
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 31 2012,22:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
With the understood caveat that some of the information in these definitions may be fundamentally wrong (i.e. 1 says that natural selection is an undirected process.??Depending on how one defines 'undirected' this may or may not be a true statement).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's when there's one or more positive feedback loops of some sort that selection effects are apt to appear to have been directed, since a positive feedback loop has what amounts to a direction. (The phrase "arms race" is frequently used as an analogy to a type of positive feedback loop.)

Henry
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 31 2012,22:13

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 31 2012,00:21)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 30 2012,21:45)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 30 2012,20:59)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 30 2012,20:40)
Gary, I saw this in a conversation you had online:

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Control Of Krebs Cycle By Molecular Intelligence

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.



At any stage through the assembly cycle a molecule of proper fit may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby self-assembly interaction to where it fits. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.[11][12]

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it. A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Elsewhere, you've said that you are revising your text constantly. Is this the latest stable text that you have about the citric acid cycle?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Due to the extreme amount of work putting this theory together (and its politics) I only have time and resources for what most matters to science.  Here's my latest project:  

< http://www.biology-online.org/biology....p146133 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That doesn't have anything to do with the citric acid cycle.

So let's put it another way: Is your statement that I quoted above about the citric acid cycle something that you feel is defensible? Or are you saying that it isn't, but you've been too busy to retract it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There is some older material to elaborate on that here:

< https://sites.google.com/site.......ull.doc >

And I can add a paper under construction that might be helpful, for summing other things up:

< https://sites.google.com/site.......fID.pdf >


But I don’t see anything inherently wrong with what you quoted (other than not going into as much detail as is possible):

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Citric acid cycle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......d_cycle >

The citric acid cycle — also known as the tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA cycle), the Krebs cycle, or the Szent-Györgyi–Krebs cycle[1][2] — is a….
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If you can show that it is wrong, then I would first have to blame it on Wikipedia, before agreeing that you are right. :D

From my experience though, they are used interchangeably, even though where I have to look for differences can say that the chemistry varies in a way that the forward/reverse TCA of origin of life papers is a more simple way of achieving the present day Citric Acid Cycle and Krebs.  They are otherwise the same to me.  But since what you are describing is more of a details thing that’s maybe more a mission for you to improve the wording of.  

Getting sidetracked on the Chromosome Illustrator project was the result of the paper also needing to better explain how “addressing” (as explained at Biology-Online) works, to make a molecular intelligence model relatively easy to program.  It’s one of the things that I do have to focus my attention on, because of it being needed by all experimenting with the computer model and theory.   But if you find a more precise way to word things then that will become the new priority and I will in minutes make the change so I can get back to work on what makes this theory unique, and scientifically valuable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are using the citric acid cycle as an example confirming your concept of "molecular intelligence". If you don't have the biology right, though, it seems that the conclusion would be that "molecular intelligence" fits a counterfactual biology, not the actual biology that we see. I'm not a biochemist, and my biology coursework touching on intracellular processes lies decades in the past, but precious little that you described meshed with my recall.

As for establishing that your description of the citric acid cycle is incorrect, we can utilize your cited source, Wikipedia.

Gary:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wikipedia:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The name of this metabolic pathway is derived from citric acid (a type of tricarboxylic acid) that is first consumed and then regenerated by this sequence of reactions to complete the cycle.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There aren't "two identical copies" produced.

Gary:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wikipedia:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The reaction [Reverse citric acid cycle] is a possible candidate for prebiotic early-earth conditions and, so, is of interest in the research of the origin of life. It has been found that some of the steps can be catalysed by minerals.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The reference linked makes clear even in the abstract that they are talking about chemical reactions in the lab, not observations of in vitro biochemistry. ZnS catalysis is not what is happening in the bacteria.

Gary:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wikipedia:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Products of the first turn of the cycle are: one GTP (or ATP), three NADH, one QH2, two CO2.
Because two acetyl-CoA molecules are produced from each glucose molecule, two cycles are required per glucose molecule. Therefore, at the end of two cycles, the products are: two GTP, six NADH, two QH2, and four CO2

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The citric acid cycle does not produce cells.

Gary:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wikipedia:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The regulation of the TCA cycle is largely determined by substrate availability and product inhibition.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't see any basis for your conclusion in what Wikipedia is saying. That lack of substrate or overabundance of products inhibits the citric acid cycle indicates that regulation doesn't require much in addition to those.

Gary:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mark Twain:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All of that last bit quoted from you is speculation without the slightest grounding in empirical data.

As noted at the outset, you do not have the biology right concerning the citric acid cycle. You don't even get simple things right that Wikipedia gets right. Your use of a bizarre alternative citric acid cycle as a point of "verification" for your claims about "molecular intelligence" indicates that "molecular intelligence" is premised upon a biology that we know does not correspond to the terrestrial biology that we have on hand.

I can see a few scenarios following.

(1) Declare that you are actually describing the "real" citric acid cycle, never mind what Wikipedia and biologists have said, and that therefore no change in your concept of "molecular intelligence" is necessary. This leads others to further solidify a classification of you as a < Timecube >-like source of information.

(2) You alter your description of the citric acid cycle to come a little closer to actual observed biology but make no changes in your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads to others coming to a conclusion that either the example has no relevance to your concept (since such widely divergent descriptions of the example supposedly "verify" the same concept), or that the concept is detached from any empirical approach whatsoever.

(3) You excise the citric acid cycle as an example of "molecular intelligence" without altering your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads others to wonder why a supposed verification can be cut without consequence to the concept that supposedly was verified.

(4) You alter both your description of the citric acid cycle and your concept of "molecular intelligence" in such a way that the changes in the citric acid cycle description have clear correlated changes in the concept. This leads others to re-evaluate their initial assessments of your work.
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 01 2012,01:04

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 31 2012,20:03)
The problem with a journal article is not knowing where to begin explaining all this there, or why.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If so you better don't even think about it.
Science is not about having pompous ideas. It's about developing questions in form of hypothesis based on already known evidence. Some grain of intuition may be involved but a flash of genius is surely the exception rather than the rule Science amateurs like you are like born again christians, they can't understand why others don't see or rather feel and experience the obvious. And this high pitched emotional state surely is incompatible with science which often means hard work, frustration and loosing time with wrong ideas in the first place. Wrong ideas are not a problem and we may actually learn from them. However, I don't get the impression that you are willing to even admit that your ideas could be wrong. In addition, hypotheses have to be formulated in a way that they can be logically and emperically tested. Furthermore, they must be expressed in a comprehensible language. You clearly miss these points.

BTW, since I am convinced that you still belive you have something the world is waiting for and scientists should be interested in: Did you already identify a journal appropriate for your groundbreaking work? Due to the impact you assume I would suggest Nature or Science. You will find the relevant guidelines for authors < here > and < here >. I would appreciate if you could keep us updated on your publishing efforts and am especially interested in any response from editors and reviewers.

ETA: You may want to search Amazon for < scientific writing >.


Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 01 2012,07:32

< Time to start keeping score. >
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 01 2012,08:45

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 01 2012,04:07)
That's what I was afraid of.  Again, you do realize that the statement promoted by ID is simply wrong?

Anyway, ok.  Now for the next bit.  To have an intelligent cause, you need an intelligence.  What is it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Animal, mineral or vegitable?


This is the sort of Tard that stinks and you have to scrape off your boots.

At least the crowd over at UD for the most part aren't demented or psychotic.

Gary just needs help and he won't get it by doing what he's doing.

See a shrink and get some drugs man, it's curable.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 01 2012,16:58

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 31 2012,22:13)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 31 2012,00:21)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 30 2012,21:45)
           
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 30 2012,20:59)
           
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 30 2012,20:40)
Gary, I saw this in a conversation you had online:

             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Control Of Krebs Cycle By Molecular Intelligence

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.



At any stage through the assembly cycle a molecule of proper fit may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby self-assembly interaction to where it fits. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.[11][12]

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it. A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Elsewhere, you've said that you are revising your text constantly. Is this the latest stable text that you have about the citric acid cycle?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Due to the extreme amount of work putting this theory together (and its politics) I only have time and resources for what most matters to science.  Here's my latest project:  

< http://www.biology-online.org/biology....p146133 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That doesn't have anything to do with the citric acid cycle.

So let's put it another way: Is your statement that I quoted above about the citric acid cycle something that you feel is defensible? Or are you saying that it isn't, but you've been too busy to retract it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There is some older material to elaborate on that here:

< https://sites.google.com/site.......ull.doc >

And I can add a paper under construction that might be helpful, for summing other things up:

< https://sites.google.com/site.......fID.pdf >


But I don’t see anything inherently wrong with what you quoted (other than not going into as much detail as is possible):

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Citric acid cycle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......d_cycle >

The citric acid cycle — also known as the tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA cycle), the Krebs cycle, or the Szent-Györgyi–Krebs cycle[1][2] — is a….
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If you can show that it is wrong, then I would first have to blame it on Wikipedia, before agreeing that you are right. :D

From my experience though, they are used interchangeably, even though where I have to look for differences can say that the chemistry varies in a way that the forward/reverse TCA of origin of life papers is a more simple way of achieving the present day Citric Acid Cycle and Krebs.  They are otherwise the same to me.  But since what you are describing is more of a details thing that’s maybe more a mission for you to improve the wording of.  

Getting sidetracked on the Chromosome Illustrator project was the result of the paper also needing to better explain how “addressing” (as explained at Biology-Online) works, to make a molecular intelligence model relatively easy to program.  It’s one of the things that I do have to focus my attention on, because of it being needed by all experimenting with the computer model and theory.   But if you find a more precise way to word things then that will become the new priority and I will in minutes make the change so I can get back to work on what makes this theory unique, and scientifically valuable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are using the citric acid cycle as an example confirming your concept of "molecular intelligence". If you don't have the biology right, though, it seems that the conclusion would be that "molecular intelligence" fits a counterfactual biology, not the actual biology that we see. I'm not a biochemist, and my biology coursework touching on intracellular processes lies decades in the past, but precious little that you described meshed with my recall.

As for establishing that your description of the citric acid cycle is incorrect, we can utilize your cited source, Wikipedia.

Gary:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wikipedia:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The name of this metabolic pathway is derived from citric acid (a type of tricarboxylic acid) that is first consumed and then regenerated by this sequence of reactions to complete the cycle.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There aren't "two identical copies" produced.

Gary:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wikipedia:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The reaction [Reverse citric acid cycle] is a possible candidate for prebiotic early-earth conditions and, so, is of interest in the research of the origin of life. It has been found that some of the steps can be catalysed by minerals.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The reference linked makes clear even in the abstract that they are talking about chemical reactions in the lab, not observations of in vitro biochemistry. ZnS catalysis is not what is happening in the bacteria.

Gary:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wikipedia:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Products of the first turn of the cycle are: one GTP (or ATP), three NADH, one QH2, two CO2.
Because two acetyl-CoA molecules are produced from each glucose molecule, two cycles are required per glucose molecule. Therefore, at the end of two cycles, the products are: two GTP, six NADH, two QH2, and four CO2

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The citric acid cycle does not produce cells.

Gary:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wikipedia:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The regulation of the TCA cycle is largely determined by substrate availability and product inhibition.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't see any basis for your conclusion in what Wikipedia is saying. That lack of substrate or overabundance of products inhibits the citric acid cycle indicates that regulation doesn't require much in addition to those.

Gary:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mark Twain:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All of that last bit quoted from you is speculation without the slightest grounding in empirical data.

As noted at the outset, you do not have the biology right concerning the citric acid cycle. You don't even get simple things right that Wikipedia gets right. Your use of a bizarre alternative citric acid cycle as a point of "verification" for your claims about "molecular intelligence" indicates that "molecular intelligence" is premised upon a biology that we know does not correspond to the terrestrial biology that we have on hand.

I can see a few scenarios following.

(1) Declare that you are actually describing the "real" citric acid cycle, never mind what Wikipedia and biologists have said, and that therefore no change in your concept of "molecular intelligence" is necessary. This leads others to further solidify a classification of you as a < Timecube >-like source of information.

(2) You alter your description of the citric acid cycle to come a little closer to actual observed biology but make no changes in your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads to others coming to a conclusion that either the example has no relevance to your concept (since such widely divergent descriptions of the example supposedly "verify" the same concept), or that the concept is detached from any empirical approach whatsoever.

(3) You excise the citric acid cycle as an example of "molecular intelligence" without altering your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads others to wonder why a supposed verification can be cut without consequence to the concept that supposedly was verified.

(4) You alter both your description of the citric acid cycle and your concept of "molecular intelligence" in such a way that the changes in the citric acid cycle description have clear correlated changes in the concept. This leads others to re-evaluate their initial assessments of your work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What you found is described in this and similar origin of life articles and papers that are referenced from the theory:

 X.V. Zhang, S.P. Ellery, C.M. Friend, H.D. Holland, F.M. Michel, M.A.A. Schoonen, and S.T. Martin, "Photodriven Reduction and Oxidation Reactions on Colloidal Semiconductor Particles: Implications for Prebiotic Synthesis," Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry, 2006, 185, 301-311.
< http://www.seas.harvard.edu/environ....007.pdf >
 Xiang V. Zhang and, Scot T. Martin, “Driving Parts of Krebs Cycle in Reverse through Mineral Photochemistry”, Journal of the American Chemical Society 2006 128 (50), 16032-16033
< http://www.seas.harvard.edu/environ....006.pdf >
< http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin....03k.pdf >
< http://www.seas.harvard.edu/environ....emistry >

There is more detail and this illustration in the full version of the theory:  


< https://sites.google.com/site.......ull.doc >

I can now see how quickly summing it up that way can cause confusion.  Looks like I better include more detail, and put the illustration back in.

In the opposite direction of the cycle there is of course disassembly, as opposed to assembly.  

Another that better shows how the reverse cycle makes a structurally mirror image molecule that next splits in half is here:


< http://bitesizebio.com/article....now=off >

The theory is correct in saying that this type of cycle is something that can be controlled, hence meets the first requirement of 4 that qualifies a system as intelligent.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 01 2012,18:10

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,12:32)
So your saying that the philosophical underpinnings of science are all wrong?

Interesting that you are using a computer and probably wireless to communicate to me that science is all wrong.

Let's start small however.  Describe ID in your own words.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After having in more detail studied the recent (he died in 1994) philosophical work of < Karl Popper > it became clear that it was being scientifically misused.  In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny.  You believe that a theory can be falsified as easily as a hypothesis, but when reality of how things go in science is considered even your best falsification fails.

Science is all about experiments that explain how things work, not philosophy.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 01 2012,18:46

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,16:10)
Science is all about experiments that explain how things work, not philosophy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Sproing!" goes the irony meter.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 01 2012,19:08

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,18:10)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,12:32)
Let's start small however.  Describe ID in your own words.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And on that, I simply follow normal scientific procedure in regard to how a theory (such as String or ID) can beforehand be premised then all are invited to write a theory to explain how that works.  In this case "intelligent cause" must be explained, and what sums up to "Natural selection did it!" answers are not accepted.

Once you know how, it's possible to scientifically meet both requirements of the premise.  And the phrase "natural selection" is such a scientific generalization that once the model is molecularly "developing" into new morphological designs comparisons to Darwinian theory sound like arm-chair philosophers (who of course never wrote one) trying to figure out what a scientific theory is, using philosophy.  If you put a "hole" in the environment that some fall into and never get out of, then it's "natural selection" too.  Before long pointing and parroting the same two generalizations at everything becomes annoying.  Can then see why in this theory such attempts to better explain how intelligence works, are best ignored.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 01 2012,19:13

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 01 2012,18:46)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,16:10)
Science is all about experiments that explain how things work, not philosophy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Sproing!" goes the irony meter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Intelligence Design Lab:

< http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....ngWId=1 >

You are free to experiment with it too.  But from what I can see you are not an experimenter, so oh well.
Posted by: olegt on Nov. 01 2012,19:22

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,19:13)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 01 2012,18:46)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,16:10)
Science is all about experiments that explain how things work, not philosophy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Sproing!" goes the irony meter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Intelligence Design Lab:

< http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1 >

You are free to experiment with it too.  But from what I can see you are not an experimenter, so oh well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Modeling does not equal experiment.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 01 2012,19:50

Quote (olegt @ Nov. 01 2012,19:22)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,19:13)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 01 2012,18:46)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,16:10)
Science is all about experiments that explain how things work, not philosophy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Sproing!" goes the irony meter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Intelligence Design Lab:

< http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1 >

You are free to experiment with it too.  But from what I can see you are not an experimenter, so oh well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Modeling does not equal experiment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More modeling (from theory) in this case prebiotic water body systems:

< http://originoflifeaquarium.blogspot.com/....pot.com >

There are so many possible experiments for so many sciences your logic amounts to denial, but at least the rest of us are experimenting with the theory's models!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 01 2012,21:35

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,16:58)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 31 2012,22:13)
   
All of that last bit quoted from you is speculation without the slightest grounding in empirical data.

As noted at the outset, you do not have the biology right concerning the citric acid cycle. You don't even get simple things right that Wikipedia gets right. Your use of a bizarre alternative citric acid cycle as a point of "verification" for your claims about "molecular intelligence" indicates that "molecular intelligence" is premised upon a biology that we know does not correspond to the terrestrial biology that we have on hand.

I can see a few scenarios following.

(1) Declare that you are actually describing the "real" citric acid cycle, never mind what Wikipedia and biologists have said, and that therefore no change in your concept of "molecular intelligence" is necessary. This leads others to further solidify a classification of you as a < Timecube >-like source of information.

(2) You alter your description of the citric acid cycle to come a little closer to actual observed biology but make no changes in your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads to others coming to a conclusion that either the example has no relevance to your concept (since such widely divergent descriptions of the example supposedly "verify" the same concept), or that the concept is detached from any empirical approach whatsoever.

(3) You excise the citric acid cycle as an example of "molecular intelligence" without altering your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads others to wonder why a supposed verification can be cut without consequence to the concept that supposedly was verified.

(4) You alter both your description of the citric acid cycle and your concept of "molecular intelligence" in such a way that the changes in the citric acid cycle description have clear correlated changes in the concept. This leads others to re-evaluate their initial assessments of your work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What you found is described in this and similar origin of life articles and papers that are referenced from the theory:

[...]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The issue is not whether you referenced sources; it is whether you understood them. The evidence says that you don't understand them. I've already seen the item in your list that was also referenced in the Wikipedia article. As I noted, it does not support your original description.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

There is more detail and this illustration in the full version of the theory:  

[...]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, yeah, you will also not find me opening up a Word document from some random guy on the Internet. Not going to happen, not without booting a Live CD of a Linux distribution or something of the sort. And I see no reason to go to the trouble of doing that.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I can now see how quickly summing it up that way can cause confusion.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have a remarkably obtuse way with words. The "confusion" is quite evidently that you haven't understood what your sources have to say about biological topics.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 Looks like I better include more detail, and put the illustration back in.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The problem is not a lack of detail, the problem is a lack of understanding and accuracy.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In the opposite direction of the cycle there is of course disassembly, as opposed to assembly.  

Another that better shows how the reverse cycle makes a structurally mirror image molecule that next splits in half is here:

[...]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have confused yourself. Let's review your statement:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You were talking about the citric acid cycle. Offering a graphic of the reverse citric acid cycle is not relevant to a claim concerning the citric acid cycle.

Plus, you need to be more specific: what step in the process are you claiming involves something that is split in half to produce two identical molecules? Where is it? What is the name of the dimer you are talking about?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The theory is correct in saying that this type of cycle is something that can be controlled, hence meets the first requirement of 4 that qualifies a system as intelligent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Big whoop. Stuff existing that *could* be controlled is not an issue. Finding stuff that *requires* a "designer" of the sort who also happens to have setting universal constants in his toolkit is.

At least we have resolved which response strategy you would select. You picked option (1), the "Timecube" emulation option. I'll adjust my opinion accordingly.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 01 2012,21:59

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,17:13)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 01 2012,18:46)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,16:10)
Science is all about experiments that explain how things work, not philosophy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Sproing!" goes the irony meter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Intelligence Design Lab:

< http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1 >

You are free to experiment with it too.  But from what I can see you are not an experimenter, so oh well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you're a cdesign proponenstist who just happens to be a programmer. Colour me shocked.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 01 2012,22:01

Philosophical reading for Gary: < Wilkins and Elsberry 2001 >

Other reading:

< Information theory and "complex specified information" >

< Published article on evolving effective strategies for movement >
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 02 2012,00:57

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 01 2012,01:04)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 31 2012,20:03)
The problem with a journal article is not knowing where to begin explaining all this there, or why.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If so you better don't even think about it.
Science is not about having pompous ideas. It's about developing questions in form of hypothesis based on already known evidence. Some grain of intuition may be involved but a flash of genius is surely the exception rather than the rule Science amateurs like you are like born again christians, they can't understand why others don't see or rather feel and experience the obvious. And this high pitched emotional state surely is incompatible with science which often means hard work, frustration and loosing time with wrong ideas in the first place. Wrong ideas are not a problem and we may actually learn from them. However, I don't get the impression that you are willing to even admit that your ideas could be wrong. In addition, hypotheses have to be formulated in a way that they can be logically and emperically tested. Furthermore, they must be expressed in a comprehensible language. You clearly miss these points.

BTW, since I am convinced that you still belive you have something the world is waiting for and scientists should be interested in: Did you already identify a journal appropriate for your groundbreaking work? Due to the impact you assume I would suggest Nature or Science. You will find the relevant guidelines for authors < here > and < here >. I would appreciate if you could keep us updated on your publishing efforts and am especially interested in any response from editors and reviewers.

ETA: You may want to search Amazon for < scientific writing >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The how to write a science paper websites were already helpful.  In my experience though, the definition of pompous became:  Needing one to crawl to self-appointed journal authority with public policy to immediately reject such theory, while their theory is already well enough presented at Planet Source Code and more.  

Giving into that does honestly set a bad example.  If this is their politics then it’s maybe best to leave them behind, like they asked for.  As it works out, scientists who most matter to the theory and I have no problem figuring out what it’s all about from what they find on Planet Source Code.  Ones who degrade that programming resource are more likely an administrator type or have (anti)religious reasons for demanding I report to a tribunal all set to brush it off for them.

I would seriously rather stay focused on following the evidence where it leads, than get stuck having to explain where we have already been which is more of a job for a gifted scribe.  These days in science papers they are given credit by becoming a coauthor but it is more or less the same thing as in ages past in the search for how we were created.  And by the way Kathy Martin and others worried about being lost, which is not religious until science is written down there too then passed along to future generations through culture and religion.  Respecting the past this way, makes the theory very faith-friendly and useful there.  And where the planet sizzles or has another ice-age that makes technology all gone it’s then only what religion can make sense of that easily carries on.  Not that I become a Jesus it’s actually here more from the emerging legend of Kathy Martin who to spite their religious way of seeing things prevailed, with help from a science guy who focused on the science work while explaining important connections that parallel religion that keeps the search for our Creator going for at least a few more hundred years hopefully forever.  Kathy is a Catholic, so where what she gave to her church for direction that kept it going to spite science change becomes legendary she eventually becomes a Saint.  I’m happy just getting credit as her science guy who helped light the path that she herself took, that won reelection after scientists vowed to make sure she's made gone ASAP.  In Islam one can achieve status as a Prophet behind Prophet Muhammad, and modern scribes there already know where the theory’s at too.

It might of course also be a big help to get something published in a major science journal, even though it’s now at most explaining what’s already here and I sure can’t afford the publishing fees so would have to claim poverty on that.  It’s like one thing adds to another then before you know it the science journalists are useless, but maybe wondering what’s wrong with the heads of scientists who well know what’s going on but just hurl insults and give pompous speeches on their behalf instead of giving me/us real help.  I still need to finish the OOL related Reverse Krebs Cycle illustration that needs molecules drawn to show how they split at the end of the cycle, and have to make a coacervate video and describe propulsion but can’t afford a microscope like that or am in a field that studies its ionics.  I’m simply so overwhelmed by what I need to finish for the theory that dumping all over me for being able to afford only time for that, looks plain scientifically dysfunctional.

Thankfully all is still well on Planet Source Code, where their creator sent best wishes to let me know I’m welcome to submit more like that, anytime.  They only care that the code is all there, like it was.  And I’m sure they don’t like being treated like a toilet either.  The new found scientific empowerment that makes even the greatest of science journals powerless against us is just one more of those things that gives others who are normally left out of the fun the thrill of having experienced real power to themselves change science.  The preferable outcome is here is that the ivory tower has to crawl to Planet Source Code for news of what’s new in science.  And with all considered there’s nothing unscientific or unfair about it.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 02 2012,01:06

And oops, bad missing-word typo above. Should read:

"And by the way Kathy Martin and others worried about this being lost, which is not religious until science is written down there too then passed along to future generations through culture and religion."

In other words, it is scientifically irresponsible to kick science just because it's well received in religion too.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 02 2012,02:41

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 01 2012,22:01)
Philosophical reading for Gary: < Wilkins and Elsberry 2001 >

Other reading:

< Information theory and "complex specified information" >

< Published article on evolving effective strategies for movement >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


William Dembski and the paper that used Avida are both trying to develop theory pertaining to intelligence by working in the opposite direction that I do.  The method thinks in terms of "agents".  Intelligence is somehow detected.  For what it's worth to help get something started, that's all fine by me.  And I hope this theory helps them discover something great from there, using their method.  William likes to explore the science meets religion, and for all we know he might find something interesting.  Science is much about putting yourself in the right place at the right time for discovery and reasons why you're there do not even matter.  After long search that goes nowhere the miracle cure ends up found in a dirty sink from common bread mold.  Only needed sloppy lab sterility procedures and to know what to look for, to make the "Eureka!" happen.

Intelligence theory on the scale of the Theory of Intelligent Design must first have the circuit and algorithm required to experiment with "intelligence" and (technology willing) "intelligent cause" events.  Need a single cognitive model that covers human intelligence, cellular intelligence, molecular intelligence, and is a bonus to next be in String Theory where William might do well in because of liking amazingly complicated math formulas that the rest of us would rather avoid.
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 02 2012,04:37

Gary, it's very tiring to try to figure out what your incoherent comments actually mean. I strongly suggest that you should greatly improve your communication efforts if you want to be understood.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 02 2012,05:09

Gary,
You said:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Could you explain what it is that JoeG is right about, and give a specific example where science has "gone his way"?

Could you explain what it is that Creationism is right about, and give a specific example where science has supported Creationism?

If you can't then please withdraw the claims.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 02 2012,05:30

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 02 2012,04:37)
Gary, it's very tiring to try to figure out what your incoherent comments actually mean. I strongly suggest that you should greatly improve your communication efforts if you want to be understood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good idea!

The only thing I now need to know, is what you are having trouble understanding.  From what I can see I am talking about news and events that are now like ancient history.  So maybe this might help.  It has info on Kathy Martin, Jack Krebs from KCFS, and the ID mayhem that was going on in Kansas that made the theory national news:

< http://www.pbs.org/wnet....er.html >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 02 2012,06:10

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,05:09)
Gary,
You said:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Could you explain what it is that JoeG is right about, and give a specific example where science has "gone his way"?

Could you explain what it is that Creationism is right about, and give a specific example where science has supported Creationism?

If you can't then please withdraw the claims.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The only thing I now need to know, is what you are having trouble understanding.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



hmm. I can see this is not going to go well.
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 02 2012,06:49

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,03:30)
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 02 2012,04:37)
Gary, it's very tiring to try to figure out what your incoherent comments actually mean. I strongly suggest that you should greatly improve your communication efforts if you want to be understood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good idea!

The only thing I now need to know, is what you are having trouble understanding.  From what I can see I am talking about news and events that are now like ancient history.  So maybe this might help.  It has info on Kathy Martin, Jack Krebs from KCFS, and the ID mayhem that was going on in Kansas that made the theory national news:

< http://www.pbs.org/wnet.......er.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary, what you're talking about is virtually impossible to figure out because of the WAY you talk. So-called "ID theory" (LOL) is incoherent enough without your illiterate, disconnected rambling.

If you have testable evidence of ID by 'the designer', present it straightforwardly and coherently.

And by the way, can you measure the alleged CSI, FSCI, dFSCI, or dFSCI/O in a banana, a frog, and a rock and show your calculations?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 02 2012,07:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It has info on Kathy Martin, Jack Krebs from KCFS, and the ID mayhem that was going on in Kansas that made the theory national news:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But no tests that support ID, right?

Culture wars are one thing. Evidence is another. Decide what it is you want to support.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 02 2012,07:44

Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 01 2012,09:45)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 01 2012,04:07)
That's what I was afraid of.  Again, you do realize that the statement promoted by ID is simply wrong?

Anyway, ok.  Now for the next bit.  To have an intelligent cause, you need an intelligence.  What is it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Animal, mineral or vegitable?


This is the sort of Tard that stinks and you have to scrape off your boots.

At least the crowd over at UD for the most part aren't demented or psychotic.

Gary just needs help and he won't get it by doing what he's doing.

See a shrink and get some drugs man, it's curable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


well i for one think we should keep him.  at least he has minded his manners!  i'm sure it will get, mmm, interesting at some point.  surely.  i mean, hell, it's got to, right?  

please?





pretty please?





pssst gary make it interesting pls
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 02 2012,08:28

I first have to say that I had to walk to the store for coffee to keep me awake another 12 hours, so be glad I'm still here for you.  And as always, please don't mind the typos..

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,05:09)
Gary,
You said:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Could you explain what it is that JoeG is right about, and give a specific example where science has "gone his way"?

Could you explain what it is that Creationism is right about, and give a specific example where science has supported Creationism?

If you can't then please withdraw the claims.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I do not know enough about JoeG to be able to comment on their work.  But I did notice they kinda have their own thread in this forum too, and it's almost 2/3rd of the way to a million hits!

My ID experience long ago started at the KCFS forum where Jack Krebs taught me everything he knew about debating against the theory.  I myself said ID is not science it is a religion which at the time it more or less still was.  I knew the UD site did not have a science worthy theory yet, and drove some at the ARN forum nuts by being honest about their not having a theory together there either.  Along with Mike Gene who loved to find all the most recent recent info on metabolic pathways it was still an excellent learning experience to have been in on.

Since I did not see a Theory of Intelligent Design being possible I instead worked on original models and classroom experiments that were put together mostly at the KCFS forum.  There was also added inspiration by email from Kathy Martin who instead of being negative and hating the idea was encouraging my search for an easy kitchen/classroom experiment to help explain what was later found to be called "self-assembly".  We in turn ended up helping to introduce the concept of "self-assembly" to science teaching, by it being published in a National Science Teachers Association journal.  It might not be as good as the delivering of a science-worthy Theory of Intelligent Design, but was still not bad for amateurs.  At least there was that to show, as something good that came out of the rubble of the public hearing in Kansas that all fell apart on them.  They proved to be right about it being more constructive to call in both sides of the issue to discuss the scientific merit of such a theory.  Now there is Chromosomal Adam and Eve taking a respectable place in science.  Dust/clay is now vital to know about in origin of life.  Through emergence we express what created us, which we are systematically in the image/likeness of.  Theory can now read so much like Genesis I could go on and on about how things are for the most part working out well for what you would call "creationists".
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 02 2012,08:39

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,02:41)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 01 2012,22:01)
Philosophical reading for Gary: < Wilkins and Elsberry 2001 >

Other reading:

< Information theory and "complex specified information" >

< Published article on evolving effective strategies for movement >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


William Dembski and the paper that used Avida are both trying to develop theory pertaining to intelligence by working in the opposite direction that I do.  The method thinks in terms of "agents".  Intelligence is somehow detected.  For what it's worth to help get something started, that's all fine by me.  And I hope this theory helps them discover something great from there, using their method.  William likes to explore the science meets religion, and for all we know he might find something interesting.  Science is much about putting yourself in the right place at the right time for discovery and reasons why you're there do not even matter.  After long search that goes nowhere the miracle cure ends up found in a dirty sink from common bread mold.  Only needed sloppy lab sterility procedures and to know what to look for, to make the "Eureka!" happen.

Intelligence theory on the scale of the Theory of Intelligent Design must first have the circuit and algorithm required to experiment with "intelligence" and (technology willing) "intelligent cause" events.  Need a single cognitive model that covers human intelligence, cellular intelligence, molecular intelligence, and is a bonus to next be in String Theory where William might do well in because of liking amazingly complicated math formulas that the rest of us would rather avoid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"The rest of us" did not avoid Dembski's math. You obviously either did not read or did not understand the first two links if you think that they indicate Dembski is on the verge of any discovery.

There is already a concept that broadly applies concerning cognitive models: the < Church-Turing thesis >. And the final link I provided fits right into that framework with identification of evolved effective methods.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 02 2012,08:48

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 02 2012,07:44)
pssst gary make it interesting pls
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Got speakers?

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....8Iumd2A >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 02 2012,08:55

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,08:28)


I do not know enough about JoeG to be able to comment on their work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's odd. I quoted you saying:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So you are able to comment on their "work" when it suits you, but when pressed you don't know what it is you are supporting.

Quality.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I did notice they kinda have their own thread in this forum too, and it's almost 2/3rd of the way to a million hits!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry, I missed the relevance of that to my question?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I knew the UD site did not have a science worthy theory yet, and drove some at the ARN forum nuts by being honest about their not having a theory together there either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So you know that UD has no science worthy theory yet at the same time The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way ?

If they don't have a theory, how can the science be going their way?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now there is Chromosomal Adam and Eve taking a respectable place in science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You believe this somehow supports Creationism or Intelligent Design?

How? Be specific!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dust/clay is now vital to know about in origin of life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except it's not in relation to ID, is it? I'm sure your deity could have made humans out of glass and peanuts had it so chose.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I could go on and on about how things are for the most part working out well for what you would call "creationists".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then please do so, as that was in fact the question that I asked.

As yet you've given a few examples of what "creationists" like to use in support of their case but we both know that "Chromosomal Adam and Eve" have nothing to do with their Biblical namesakes, and that by "Dust/clay" you are referencing the biblical god.

If it turns out the origin of life depends on light (which of course it will at some level) then to you that'll be "proof" that the bible was right all along because it mentions the word "light".

So your evidence fades away like some much a thing that fades quickly.


Posted by: Robin on Nov. 02 2012,09:59

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 02 2012,04:37)
Gary, it's very tiring to try to figure out what your incoherent comments actually mean. I strongly suggest that you should greatly improve your communication efforts if you want to be understood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Personally, I'm stunned that this discussion has gone on for two pages as I can't for the life of me parse even one of Gary's ID sentences. More power to those of you who have better abstract analysis skills and infinite patience.

ETA: Clarification


Posted by: Robin on Nov. 02 2012,10:13

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,08:28)
I first have to say that I had to walk to the store for coffee to keep me awake another 12 hours, so be glad I'm still here for you.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< This isn't you > is it Gary?
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 02 2012,10:19

< Too Much Coffee Man! >
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 02 2012,10:20

Maybe Gary would be easier too understand if he wasn't... hmm... what's the word... oh, yeah: fucking loony tunes.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 02 2012,11:36

Up to 100 cups yet Gary?

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....0ErCU1c >

I doubt that'll actually happen you know..
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 02 2012,12:05

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 02 2012,07:59)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 02 2012,04:37)
Gary, it's very tiring to try to figure out what your incoherent comments actually mean. I strongly suggest that you should greatly improve your communication efforts if you want to be understood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Personally, I'm stunned that this discussion has gone on for two pages as I can't for the life of me parse even one of Gary's ID sentences. More power to those of you who have better abstract analysis skills and infinite patience.

ETA: Clarification
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's just a more caffienated version of the usual ID spiel - a mash-up of sciency-sounding jargon, which reduces to "looks designed to me".

The "I can model it with a computer program, therefore ID" argument is, well, a little special, in much the same way that Joe's "cake recipe" argument was.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 02 2012,12:21

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,08:55)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,08:28)


I do not know enough about JoeG to be able to comment on their work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's odd. I quoted you saying:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So you are able to comment on their "work" when it suits you, but when pressed you don't know what it is you are supporting.

Quality.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I did notice they kinda have their own thread in this forum too, and it's almost 2/3rd of the way to a million hits!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry, I missed the relevance of that to my question?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I knew the UD site did not have a science worthy theory yet, and drove some at the ARN forum nuts by being honest about their not having a theory together there either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So you know that UD has no science worthy theory yet at the same time The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way ?

If they don't have a theory, how can the science be going their way?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now there is Chromosomal Adam and Eve taking a respectable place in science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You believe this somehow supports Creationism or Intelligent Design?

How? Be specific!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dust/clay is now vital to know about in origin of life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except it's not in relation to ID, is it? I'm sure your deity could have made humans out of glass and peanuts had it so chose.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I could go on and on about how things are for the most part working out well for what you would call "creationists".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then please do so, as that was in fact the question that I asked.

As yet you've given a few examples of what "creationists" like to use in support of their case but we both know that "Chromosomal Adam and Eve" have nothing to do with their Biblical namesakes, and that by "Dust/clay" you are referencing the biblical god.

If it turns out the origin of life depends on light (which of course it will at some level) then to you that'll be "proof" that the bible was right all along because it mentions the word "light".

So your evidence fades away like some much a thing that fades quickly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To quickly sum up what is most important to myself and all others including JoeG (who I at least know is catching up to Kathy Martin's record amount of ridicule) here's more culture change for your speakers too:  

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?N....LfE7K6Q >

If you followed the link that was found in the UD thread < to my long ago W I Don't Know > experiment that left me well misunderstood, very afraid for the future, but I attended the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and got to know some in the "industry".  Then Radio Pirates were hip in radio and the Grunge movement needed scientific input so there I was writing what I could into that network, that was through fax machine due to PC's and internet not being around yet.  Years later, it's the same thing but all are older and wiser and the theory I was talking about with molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, and so forth, is coming of age thanks to the ID controversy.  

You can say what you want about the science in the theory not being a big deal scientifically anymore.  I already knew that.  Real scientific change that once we once could only dream about, is no longer something hoped for that might happen, it already did.  

I know what it's like to suffer for a theory like this.  And I knew that Kathy and others (who I did know well enough to be able to relate to their novel scientific problem) got into more than they thought and were shocked by the "scientists" boycotting the hearing.  Then came the gnawing question of why they just threw mud at it then ran.  But as it now stands, the computer model and theory that is at Planet Source Code is example of what happens when one doesn't run away like that.  The experience has even made the Kansas Public Schools ahead of the curve in self-assembly and more, that makes for model school material.  Not even Jack Krebs minds that happening, especially since there would not have been the KCFS forum without him and deserves credit for the good that ultimately came from his hard work too.  He also needed professor Joe Meert and others who helped keep it academic to stay in the battle after the hearing via the KCFS forum.  So with all said, none on the ground in Kansas wanted to be abandoned by scientists.  And in hindsight what Kathy and others in the "minority" were trying to describe that needed some patience to fully understand was not a good idea to abandon either.  Unless of course you don't mind doing what we want while Jack just gets nervous from all the IDeas I could not help but gave the other side.

Creationists in Kansas and elsewhere are likely a part of the reason the Genesis-friendly science that you consider no big deal scientifically is now understood as being no big deal anymore.  That's how the creationist strategy here works.  What works for them in the classroom is rightly made a non-issue by making sure it gets taught.  They themselves get to introduce it too or explain to teacher, not someone also representing the Atheist movement or other motivator to be one up on their competition in science that is not even in the classroom yet.  That's the kind of progress I see happening in Creationism country that I know, the kind that you can do nothing to stop.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 02 2012,12:23

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2012,10:05)
The "I can model it with a computer program, therefore ID" argument is, well, a little special, in much the same way that Joe's "cake recipe" argument was.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly.

< "'All wood burns', states Sir Bedevere. Therefore, he concludes, all that burns is wood. This is of course pure bullshit." >
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 02 2012,12:28

In case anyone else is marking a bingo card:

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,10:21)
I know what it's like to suffer for a theory like this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 02 2012,12:29

wtf is this guy even saying anyway.

He's just Robert Byers with a C# manual.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 02 2012,12:31

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:21)
If you followed the link that was found in the UD thread < to my long ago W I Don't Know > experiment that left me well misunderstood, very afraid for the future, but I attended the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and got to know some in the "industry".  Then Radio Pirates were hip in radio and the Grunge movement needed scientific input so there I was writing what I could into that network, that was through fax machine due to PC's and internet not being around yet.  Years later, it's the same thing but all are older and wiser and the theory I was talking about with molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, and so forth, is coming of age thanks to the ID controversy.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary,
Aside from the fact that you're an obvious crank, this bit from you demonstrates why no one knows what the hell you're talking about.  It makes no sense on any level. It's an incoherent mess. Until you can learn how to start at the beginning and work your way to the end by way of the middle, you're just throwing dung and wondering why no one smells the roses.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 02 2012,12:32

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2012,12:05)
 
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 02 2012,07:59)
   
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 02 2012,04:37)
Gary, it's very tiring to try to figure out what your incoherent comments actually mean. I strongly suggest that you should greatly improve your communication efforts if you want to be understood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Personally, I'm stunned that this discussion has gone on for two pages as I can't for the life of me parse even one of Gary's ID sentences. More power to those of you who have better abstract analysis skills and infinite patience.

ETA: Clarification
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's just a more caffienated version of the usual ID spiel - a mash-up of sciency-sounding jargon, which reduces to "looks designed to me".

The "I can model it with a computer program, therefore ID" argument is, well, a little special, in much the same way that Joe's "cake recipe" argument was.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks John. I kind of got that gist in general. I'm just saying that I have no ability to engage his ID arguments in specific because I'm exhausted by the time I get through any of them. Take this sentence:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm ok all the way through "absurd". But the sentence keeps going and it's a quagmire. "...since even where confirmed..." (huh?) "...by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms..."(finding more EAs? I really don't think that's what you mean, but I'm not sure what you are really thinking here) "would still "evolve"..." (wait...what? Something's missing there. A thought? A word? A few words?) "...and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny." I don't even think he meant that last part the way he wrote it. I think he meant that more EAs would lead to articles and papers that scientifically explain the new found evidence, but it's hard for me to know.

Basically, after reading a few of his posts, I've given up any hope of actually discussing what Gary is trying to get across. But you all seem to be doing a fine job, so I'm just going to sit on the sidelines munching popcorn.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 02 2012,12:48

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 02 2012,12:31)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:21)
If you followed the link that was found in the UD thread < to my long ago W I Don't Know > experiment that left me well misunderstood, very afraid for the future, but I attended the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and got to know some in the "industry".  Then Radio Pirates were hip in radio and the Grunge movement needed scientific input so there I was writing what I could into that network, that was through fax machine due to PC's and internet not being around yet.  Years later, it's the same thing but all are older and wiser and the theory I was talking about with molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, and so forth, is coming of age thanks to the ID controversy.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary,
Aside from the fact that you're an obvious crank, this bit from you demonstrates why no one knows what the hell you're talking about.  It makes no sense on any level. It's an incoherent mess. Until you can learn how to start at the beginning and work your way to the end by way of the middle, you're just throwing dung and wondering why no one smells the roses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quick question then.

Off the top of your head, what are the four requirements for a system to qualify as "intelligent" and two sources for more info on the cognitive model(s) it came from?
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 02 2012,12:58

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,10:48)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 02 2012,12:31)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:21)
If you followed the link that was found in the UD thread < to my long ago W I Don't Know > experiment that left me well misunderstood, very afraid for the future, but I attended the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and got to know some in the "industry".  Then Radio Pirates were hip in radio and the Grunge movement needed scientific input so there I was writing what I could into that network, that was through fax machine due to PC's and internet not being around yet.  Years later, it's the same thing but all are older and wiser and the theory I was talking about with molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, and so forth, is coming of age thanks to the ID controversy.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary,
Aside from the fact that you're an obvious crank, this bit from you demonstrates why no one knows what the hell you're talking about.  It makes no sense on any level. It's an incoherent mess. Until you can learn how to start at the beginning and work your way to the end by way of the middle, you're just throwing dung and wondering why no one smells the roses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quick question then.

Off the top of your head, what are the four requirements for a system to qualify as "intelligent" and two sources for more info on the cognitive model(s) it came from?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's your "theory".  You tell us, if you can.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 02 2012,13:00

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:48)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 02 2012,12:31)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:21)
If you followed the link that was found in the UD thread < to my long ago W I Don't Know > experiment that left me well misunderstood, very afraid for the future, but I attended the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and got to know some in the "industry".  Then Radio Pirates were hip in radio and the Grunge movement needed scientific input so there I was writing what I could into that network, that was through fax machine due to PC's and internet not being around yet.  Years later, it's the same thing but all are older and wiser and the theory I was talking about with molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, and so forth, is coming of age thanks to the ID controversy.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary,
Aside from the fact that you're an obvious crank, this bit from you demonstrates why no one knows what the hell you're talking about.  It makes no sense on any level. It's an incoherent mess. Until you can learn how to start at the beginning and work your way to the end by way of the middle, you're just throwing dung and wondering why no one smells the roses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quick question then.

Off the top of your head, what are the four requirements for a system to qualify as "intelligent" and two sources for more info on the cognitive model(s) it came from?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now I have no idea what your questions have to do with my observations, except perhaps to demonstrate that the problem is your apparent inability to maintain a linear discussion.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 02 2012,13:03

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:32)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2012,12:05)
Thanks John. I kind of got that gist in general. I'm just saying that I have no ability to engage his ID arguments in specific because I'm exhausted by the time I get through any of them. Take this sentence:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you only want to engage what I said are worn out philosophical arguments instead of science then it's best that you do not ever expect that from me anyway.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 02 2012,13:07

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 02 2012,13:00)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:48)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 02 2012,12:31)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:21)
If you followed the link that was found in the UD thread < to my long ago W I Don't Know > experiment that left me well misunderstood, very afraid for the future, but I attended the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and got to know some in the "industry".  Then Radio Pirates were hip in radio and the Grunge movement needed scientific input so there I was writing what I could into that network, that was through fax machine due to PC's and internet not being around yet.  Years later, it's the same thing but all are older and wiser and the theory I was talking about with molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, and so forth, is coming of age thanks to the ID controversy.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary,
Aside from the fact that you're an obvious crank, this bit from you demonstrates why no one knows what the hell you're talking about.  It makes no sense on any level. It's an incoherent mess. Until you can learn how to start at the beginning and work your way to the end by way of the middle, you're just throwing dung and wondering why no one smells the roses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quick question then.

Off the top of your head, what are the four requirements for a system to qualify as "intelligent" and two sources for more info on the cognitive model(s) it came from?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now I have no idea what your questions have to do with my observations, except perhaps to demonstrate that the problem is your apparent inability to maintain a linear discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You did not study the theory, correct?
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 02 2012,13:13

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:32)
[quote=JohnW,Nov. 02 2012,12:05]  ..... Take this sentence:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm ok all the way through "absurd". But the sentence keeps going and it's a quagmire. "...since even where confirmed..." (huh?) "...by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms..."(finding more EAs? I really don't think that's what you mean, but I'm not sure what you are really thinking here) "would still "evolve"..." (wait...what? Something's missing there. A thought? A word? A few words?) "...and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny." I don't even think he meant that last part the way he wrote it. I think he meant that more EAs would lead to articles and papers that scientifically explain the new found evidence, but it's hard for me to know.

Basically, after reading a few of his posts, I've given up any hope of actually discussing what Gary is trying to get across. But you all seem to be doing a fine job, so I'm just going to sit on the sidelines munching popcorn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, at least you quoted the whole sentence instead of taking the juiciest part to munch on all by itself.  In my book, that's progress too, even where it looks like a mess to you.
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 02 2012,13:15

Let's try this:

Gary here are some questions could you answer them with simply yes/no.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between:

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence
2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature
3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

Let's see what happens...
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 02 2012,13:16

Oh and just add a comma after "more" if you want:

In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more, Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 02 2012,13:21

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 02 2012,13:15)
Let's try this:

Gary here are some questions could you answer them with simply yes/no.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between:

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence
2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature
3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

Let's see what happens...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You must first operationally define "intelligently designed" and how that can be different from "designed by nature" because otherwise you have only presented a false dichotomy.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 02 2012,13:22

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,13:03)
If you only want to engage what I said are worn out philosophical arguments instead of science then it's best that you do not ever expect that from me anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are a fine one to talk about engaging on the science.

Perhaps you could point out to me where in your reply to me you answer any of my specific questions?

I asked what science you can point to that supports Creationism?

I asked how can it be going their way if they don't have a theory (your words)?

I asked how Chromosomal Adam and Eve have anything to do with creationism or support it in any way?

I asked how Dust/clay is now vital to the origin of life for ID when the designer could have used anything?

If you want to ramble away randomly and think that you are convincing people or making an actual argument then you are very much mistaken.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's the kind of progress I see happening in Creationism country that I know, the kind that you can do nothing to stop.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, not actual scientific progress then?

So if Creationism is progressing where does it logically go?

What god is it by the way? There are many? Who was the "creator" in "Creationism" and how do you know (we might as well go there now)?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 02 2012,13:23

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,13:21)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 02 2012,13:15)
Let's try this:

Gary here are some questions could you answer them with simply yes/no.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between:

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence
2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature
3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

Let's see what happens...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You must first operationally define "intelligently designed" and how that can be different from "designed by nature" because otherwise you have only presented a false dichotomy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So have have an ID advocate asking us to define ID?

Burden of something falls on the someone?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 02 2012,13:24

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,13:16)
In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What experience is it that you can point to that caused you to believe that?

Bet you can't point to anything specific. People like you are always the same.

Why don't you give an example of the sort of paper you'd expect to see if such was discovered?

What would the "Darwinist" be saying in order to preserve "Darwinism"?

Be bold. It's only a thought experiment.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 02 2012,13:28

Gary,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please give an example.

For your chosen example, please present the evidence for

A)  intelligent cause as it's origin
B) an undirected process such as natural selection as it's origin

and explain why you found A) more persuasive then B.

I can then see if I agree with you or not.

Quite simple really.

If you can't do that, and don't change your sig then, well....
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 02 2012,13:32

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,13:03)
If you only want to engage what I said are worn out  philosophical arguments instead of science then it's best that you do not ever expect that from me anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since you directed your post to me Gary, I'm going to try and parse it and see if I can respond.

Let's see:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you only want to engage what I said [and] are worn out  [by] philosophical arguments[,] instead of [while engaging] science [scientific arguments,] then it's best that you do not [n]ever expect that from me [to address only science] anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmm...assuming I got the gist of what you were going for, rewritten this would be:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you are only interested in engaging me if I focus on scientific arguments because you do not understand my philosophical arguments, you likely won't enjoy discussing what I say because I won't focus only on science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ehh...that might be close. Who knows?

See Gary, that's the whole point. My complaint has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with syntax. I don't know what you are actually trying to communicate. As I stated, I can get the gist, but getting the gist does not actually allow for direct, linear communication. I can't get into the details of what you are trying to convey so I can't appreciate your concepts on any deeper levels.

So Gary, I'm happy that you think you presenting some philosophical conceptual framework or whatever, but since I can't quite parse the nitty-gritty of said philosophical argument, let alone how it applies in any way to science, I can't exactly ask any questions about your concept or analyze it, let alone use it.
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 02 2012,13:34

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,13:21)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 02 2012,13:15)
Let's try this:

Gary here are some questions could you answer them with simply yes/no.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between:

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence
2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature
3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

Let's see what happens...

You must first operationally define "intelligently designed" and how that can be different from "designed by nature" because otherwise you have only presented a false dichotomy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes please do, if you wish, operationally define "intelligently designed and how it can be different from "designed by nature". I'm sure your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing makes a clear destinction. It would be just fine if you use your definitions and simply answer yes/no to the questions above.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 02 2012,13:34

Yeah Gary. What Robin said. Lie down, get some sleep and then come back and write a paragraph or two instead of a wall of text.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 02 2012,13:34

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,13:13)
[quote=Robin,Nov. 02 2012,12:32]
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2012,12:05)
 ..... Take this sentence:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm ok all the way through "absurd". But the sentence keeps going and it's a quagmire. "...since even where confirmed..." (huh?) "...by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms..."(finding more EAs? I really don't think that's what you mean, but I'm not sure what you are really thinking here) "would still "evolve"..." (wait...what? Something's missing there. A thought? A word? A few words?) "...and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny." I don't even think he meant that last part the way he wrote it. I think he meant that more EAs would lead to articles and papers that scientifically explain the new found evidence, but it's hard for me to know.

Basically, after reading a few of his posts, I've given up any hope of actually discussing what Gary is trying to get across. But you all seem to be doing a fine job, so I'm just going to sit on the sidelines munching popcorn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, at least you quoted the whole sentence instead of taking the juiciest part to munch on all by itself.  In my book, that's progress too, even where it looks like a mess to you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, like I said, I tried.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 02 2012,13:34

OMFSM, we're desperate for a TARD fix around here.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 02 2012,13:35

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 02 2012,13:23)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,13:21)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 02 2012,13:15)
Let's try this:

Gary here are some questions could you answer them with simply yes/no.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between:

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence
2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature
3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

Let's see what happens...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You must first operationally define "intelligently designed" and how that can be different from "designed by nature" because otherwise you have only presented a false dichotomy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So have have an ID advocate asking us to define ID?

Burden of something falls on the someone?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I here have to ask you, because the theory I write/represent has no such dichotomy.  It's like me asking you whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity.  Your next likely reaction would be to wonder what the heck motivated me ask a question like that.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 02 2012,13:38

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,14:35)
theory
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You keep using that word, etc. etc.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 02 2012,13:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I here have to ask you, because the theory I write/represent has no such dichotomy.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Perhaps if you answered the questions anyway, and explained why that is as you go along that would help.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's like me asking you whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except the difference is that we can go and learn about EMP and electricity from someone else other then you.

You are the only person who knows about your theory.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your next likely reaction would be to wonder what the heck motivated me ask a question like that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In fact my next reaction is to wonder why someone who is trying to sell their theory would not take a moment to address a sincere set of questions that are obviously designed to elicit something of relevance.

The fact that from your lofty viewpoint these questions are like asking whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity is beside the point. It's your theory, so deign to descend and explain it even if it's in the context of a set of questions that make no sense when considered from the framework of your theory.

If you can't make the person asking the questions believe that those questions do not make sense if they understand then theory by explaining the theory to them in that context then you don't even have something that you understand yourself.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 02 2012,13:42

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,13:16)
Oh and just add a comma after "more" if you want:

In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more, Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's certainly better, but still leaves me at a loss. Evolutionary algorithms don't have anything to do with explaining rabbits in the Cambrian strata. That's a nitpick I guess given your overall point, so I'll go back to my syntax issue. What does, "even where confirmed by finding more" mean? Do you mean, that if we found one lone rabbit such a find would simply be taken as a mistake, but finding many rabbits (thus confirming the first find) would not be seen as a mistake? Just curious.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 02 2012,13:48

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 02 2012,14:34)
OMFSM, we're desperate for a TARD fix around here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


step into my office, i can prescribe you something for that.  and not none of this sugar water shit
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 02 2012,13:50

guys guys guys guys guys

it's not that Gary wants to communicate his "theory" to you and can't, somehow

it's that YOU ARE WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE AND IT'S NOT HIS JOB TO POINT OUT WHAT MAKES YOU WRONG

amirite?


Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 02 2012,13:55

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,13:34)
Yeah Gary. What Robin said. Lie down, get some sleep and then come back and write a paragraph or two instead of a wall of text.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree that's good advice, but I'm still on standby for possible a call from work to fix a machine and still have plenty of coffee left after buying a new can this morning.  I'm more worried about the tired to giddiness Bung-holio stage, that goes way past typos and long read.  That's when you realize that I do not mix well with philosophy, and maybe best to not get me started in that direction.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 02 2012,14:06

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,13:55)
That's when you realize that I do not mix well with philosophy, and maybe best to not get me started in that direction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps later. For now, explain why using a reasonable question as an opportunity to explain your theory in light of that question is not possible?

Go on, you've got to start somewhere!

Expecting people to "have studied" your work is unreasonable. Expect to be judged only on what you write here and that alone. If you have answers already written, just quote them. That's fine.

But if I'm (or anyone!) going to ask you a question and your response is "if you understood my theory you'd not even ask that" you can sod off here and now.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 02 2012,14:06

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 02 2012,13:50)
guys guys guys guys guys

it's not that Gary wants to communicate his "theory" to you and can't, somehow

it's that YOU ARE WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE AND IT'S NOT HIS JOB TO POINT OUT WHAT MAKES YOU WRONG

amirite?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See...that gets a "like".
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 02 2012,14:07

The hockey ice of science is open to anyone, Gary, you're welcome to get on it and give it a try like everyone else. But you've not even bothered to learn the rules. You're just sitting at home playing tiddlywinks, crying that everyone else is playing the game wrong and they should just give you the goddamned Stanley Cup.

You're playing an entirely different game, Gary. It's called "Creationist Blogger" and neither scientists nor the NHL gives a shit.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 02 2012,14:28

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,13:41)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I here have to ask you, because the theory I write/represent has no such dichotomy.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Perhaps if you answered the questions anyway, and explained why that is as you go along that would help.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's like me asking you whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except the difference is that we can go and learn about EMP and electricity from someone else other then you.

You are the only person who knows about your theory.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your next likely reaction would be to wonder what the heck motivated me ask a question like that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In fact my next reaction is to wonder why someone who is trying to sell their theory would not take a moment to address a sincere set of questions that are obviously designed to elicit something of relevance.

The fact that from your lofty viewpoint these questions are like asking whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity is beside the point. It's your theory, so deign to descend and explain it even if it's in the context of a set of questions that make no sense when considered from the framework of your theory.

If you can't make the person asking the questions believe that those questions do not make sense if they understand then theory by explaining the theory to them in that context then you don't even have something that you understand yourself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We're still making good progress.  They were good questions to ask.  I was at least quickly able to give a short answer, then the replies that came back made it easier to elaborate.

From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework where there is no natural/supernatural dichotomy that makes the questions the same as asking whether you can tell the difference between apples and apples.  That is why I am now trying to explain what I right away saw.  Once you can look at it that way, you'll know what I'm talking about.  

I'll try to think of another way to explain it.  But the simple answer is that the way the science works out the intelligent designer also exists 24/7 in nature (especially through molecular intelligence) and all over the universe, not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.  

As in any scientific theory, something either exists or it does not.  Same here.  But that might at first seem impossible, I guess.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 02 2012,14:41

Actually you had me at


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


as of course there has never been such a thing.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is all fine. Convince me.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 02 2012,14:46

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:28)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,13:41)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I here have to ask you, because the theory I write/represent has no such dichotomy.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Perhaps if you answered the questions anyway, and explained why that is as you go along that would help.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's like me asking you whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except the difference is that we can go and learn about EMP and electricity from someone else other then you.

You are the only person who knows about your theory.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your next likely reaction would be to wonder what the heck motivated me ask a question like that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In fact my next reaction is to wonder why someone who is trying to sell their theory would not take a moment to address a sincere set of questions that are obviously designed to elicit something of relevance.

The fact that from your lofty viewpoint these questions are like asking whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity is beside the point. It's your theory, so deign to descend and explain it even if it's in the context of a set of questions that make no sense when considered from the framework of your theory.

If you can't make the person asking the questions believe that those questions do not make sense if they understand then theory by explaining the theory to them in that context then you don't even have something that you understand yourself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We're still making good progress.  They were good questions to ask.  I was at least quickly able to give a short answer, then the replies that came back made it easier to elaborate.

From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework where there is no natural/supernatural dichotomy that makes the questions the same as asking whether you can tell the difference between apples and apples.  That is why I am now trying to explain what I right away saw.  Once you can look at it that way, you'll know what I'm talking about.  

I'll try to think of another way to explain it.  But the simple answer is that the way the science works out the intelligent designer also exists 24/7 in nature (especially through molecular intelligence) and all over the universe, not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.  

As in any scientific theory, something either exists or it does not.  Same here.  But that might at first seem impossible, I guess.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary, it would save everyone, including yourself, a lot of aggravation if you just told us what your fucking theory is.

Or you could continue with your "It's far too complicated, and you're not smart enough to understand my genius" line.  In that case you might want to consider finding another forum: one more suitable to such a superintelligent, martyred prophet-without-honour.

Have you contacted Vox Day?
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 02 2012,14:48

So please answer the basic questions in accordance with your views.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between:

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence
2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature
3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

If your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing is unable to detect difference then obviously your answer is "no" and you can add, if you want, an explanation.  But as I said before, a yes/no answer will suffice for now.

I'm sure you have made these distinctions in your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing or it would sign positive inference in anything and everything.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 02 2012,15:34

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:28)
We're still making good progress.  They were good questions to ask.  I was at least quickly able to give a short answer, then the replies that came back made it easier to elaborate.

From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework where there is no natural/supernatural dichotomy that makes the questions the same as asking whether you can tell the difference between apples and apples.  That is why I am now trying to explain what I right away saw.  Once you can look at it that way, you'll know what I'm talking about.  

I'll try to think of another way to explain it.  But the simple answer is that the way the science works out the intelligent designer also exists 24/7 in nature (especially through molecular intelligence) and all over the universe, not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.  

As in any scientific theory, something either exists or it does not.  Same here.  But that might at first seem impossible, I guess.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, is that a "pantheism" answer, or a "miracles happen all the time" answer, or a "God is a tinkerer" answer, or a "front-loading" answer? Or an "invisible holograms" answer?

Or an "I'm being deliberately obtuse because my theory is as insubstantial as a bird fart" answer?

The way what science works out, Gary? Where's the equation that points to the designer? You know, like:

E=mc2+YHWH

???
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 02 2012,15:39

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2012,14:46)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:28)
 

As in any scientific theory, something either exists or it does not.  Same here.  But that might at first seem impossible, I guess.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary, it would save everyone, including yourself, a lot of aggravation if you just told us what your fucking theory is.

Or you could continue with your "It's far too complicated, and you're not smart enough to understand my genius" line.  In that case you might want to consider finding another forum: one more suitable to such a superintelligent, martyred prophet-without-honour.

Have you contacted Vox Day?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< My Theory >
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 02 2012,15:46

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,14:41)
Actually you had me at
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


as of course there has never been such a thing.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is all fine. Convince me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To show that this is just something new to you, but not everyone else everywhere, here's a topic of mine from Tue Apr 08, 2008 titled "I seriously think I found the Design Theory" that got the theory project started:

< http://www.kcfs.org/phpBB3.....1&t=839 >

There are a number of topics after that where with the help of scientists who could of course not resist teasing it even though they knew it only made the theory harder to get rid of by doing so.  It kept improving with time while traveling through a very good number of forums.  Years later I'm here, with what it became because of having a framework that works great with the peer-review process all are used to.  I often compared it to a peer-review inference engine, where scientists line up their replies that can't help but make the theory even better because of what they contain for information, that only needs proper digesting into new knowledge from the old.

Seeing the theory slowly reveal itself was quite a thrill for those who were fully in on it.  In my opinion, that's what most convinces a scientist that it's the real thing.  Doesn't need God in the gaps arguments to support itself, at all.  In fact, that's what makes it scientifically unstoppable.  Worse you can do to it, is help make it stronger.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 02 2012,16:00

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 02 2012,15:39)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2012,14:46)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:28)
 

As in any scientific theory, something either exists or it does not.  Same here.  But that might at first seem impossible, I guess.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary, it would save everyone, including yourself, a lot of aggravation if you just told us what your fucking theory is.

Or you could continue with your "It's far too complicated, and you're not smart enough to understand my genius" line.  In that case you might want to consider finding another forum: one more suitable to such a superintelligent, martyred prophet-without-honour.

Have you contacted Vox Day?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< My Theory >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I loved the < "Rise of the Guardians" > trailer that it had for advertisement!    

Yes this is going to be epic!  And saying "no music" is only asking for more.  But that's my radio and broadcasting school experience talking, of course.
Posted by: damitall on Nov. 02 2012,16:02

Can you give us the name of one- just one - scientist who is convinced that your theory is "the real thing"?

Then perhaps he or she could explain it to us, because you fucking well can't
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 02 2012,16:09

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,13:46)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,14:41)
Actually you had me at
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


as of course there has never been such a thing.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is all fine. Convince me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To show that this is just something new to you, but not everyone else everywhere, here's a topic of mine from Tue Apr 08, 2008 titled "I seriously think I found the Design Theory" that got the theory project started:

< http://www.kcfs.org/phpBB3.....1&t=839 >

There are a number of topics after that where with the help of scientists who could of course not resist teasing it even though they knew it only made the theory harder to get rid of by doing so.  It kept improving with time while traveling through a very good number of forums.  Years later I'm here, with what it became because of having a framework that works great with the peer-review process all are used to.  I often compared it to a peer-review inference engine, where scientists line up their replies that can't help but make the theory even better because of what they contain for information, that only needs proper digesting into new knowledge from the old.

Seeing the theory slowly reveal itself was quite a thrill for those who were fully in on it.  In my opinion, that's what most convinces a scientist that it's the real thing.  Doesn't need God in the gaps arguments to support itself, at all.  In fact, that's what makes it scientifically unstoppable.  Worse you can do to it, is help make it stronger.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quoted from the link, because it looks like this is as good as we're going to get:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwinian processes were never intended to explain everything, because some things happen as fast as the self-assembly of 6 sided snowflakes from a blizzarding storm cloud to the self-assembly of ATP synthase and flagellum. They are designs that exist in the behavior of atoms that when brought together form these designs. Can visualize them as always being there. Are expressed when conditions are there for it to be. In living things, that is determined by coded DNA templates that catalyze the production of proteins that from there self-assemble into possible designs.

The genetic code is the long-term memory of a self-perpetuating metabolic cycle that goes one cycle per reproduction. This mechanism allows one small step at a time building upon a previous design, as in evidence in the fossil record where never once was there not a design present for the new design to have come from. Design does not have to become more complex or be more advantageous to survival because the organism itself is in part intelligently and consciously directing their change in design by what it finds desirable in the variety available to select as a mate. Examples include the peacocks tail. In humans the looks of "sex symbols" sometimes computer enhanced to represent the conscious ideals not yet common in our morphology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So it's a combination of "Everything looks designed to me" and "Organisms intelligently control their own evolution".

The first part looks suspiciously like a non-falsifiable statement of faith.  

As for the second part: if only we could find a non-sexually-reproducing, unintelligent organism...
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 02 2012,16:51

Quote (damitall @ Nov. 02 2012,16:02)
Can you give us the name of one- just one - scientist who is convinced that your theory is "the real thing"?

Then perhaps he or she could explain it to us, because you fucking well can't
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are saying that you need a scientist to help you figure out what is at Planet Source Code and for download at theoryofid.blogspot.com?
Posted by: Freddie on Nov. 02 2012,16:55

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,16:51)
Quote (damitall @ Nov. 02 2012,16:02)
Can you give us the name of one- just one - scientist who is convinced that your theory is "the real thing"?

Then perhaps he or she could explain it to us, because you fucking well can't
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are saying that you need a scientist to help you figure out what is at Planet Source Code and for download at theoryofid.blogspot.com?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think we need a fucking WindTalker, myself.  Unfortunately we are a day too late ...

< http://edition.cnn.com/2012....lsearch >
Posted by: Freddie on Nov. 02 2012,16:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are a number of topics after that where with the help of scientists who could of course not resist teasing it even though they knew it only made the theory harder to get rid of by doing so.  It kept improving with time while traveling through a very good number of forums.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does someone have an eraser?  I thought he mentioned time travel and crossed it off, but on re-reading the sentence I see I was just a little too eager for the win.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 02 2012,17:07

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2012,16:09)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,13:46)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,14:41)
Actually you had me at
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


as of course there has never been such a thing.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is all fine. Convince me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To show that this is just something new to you, but not everyone else everywhere, here's a topic of mine from Tue Apr 08, 2008 titled "I seriously think I found the Design Theory" that got the theory project started:

< http://www.kcfs.org/phpBB3.....1&t=839 >

There are a number of topics after that where with the help of scientists who could of course not resist teasing it even though they knew it only made the theory harder to get rid of by doing so.  It kept improving with time while traveling through a very good number of forums.  Years later I'm here, with what it became because of having a framework that works great with the peer-review process all are used to.  I often compared it to a peer-review inference engine, where scientists line up their replies that can't help but make the theory even better because of what they contain for information, that only needs proper digesting into new knowledge from the old.

Seeing the theory slowly reveal itself was quite a thrill for those who were fully in on it.  In my opinion, that's what most convinces a scientist that it's the real thing.  Doesn't need God in the gaps arguments to support itself, at all.  In fact, that's what makes it scientifically unstoppable.  Worse you can do to it, is help make it stronger.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quoted from the link, because it looks like this is as good as we're going to get:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwinian processes were never intended to explain everything, because some things happen as fast as the self-assembly of 6 sided snowflakes from a blizzarding storm cloud to the self-assembly of ATP synthase and flagellum. They are designs that exist in the behavior of atoms that when brought together form these designs. Can visualize them as always being there. Are expressed when conditions are there for it to be. In living things, that is determined by coded DNA templates that catalyze the production of proteins that from there self-assemble into possible designs.

The genetic code is the long-term memory of a self-perpetuating metabolic cycle that goes one cycle per reproduction. This mechanism allows one small step at a time building upon a previous design, as in evidence in the fossil record where never once was there not a design present for the new design to have come from. Design does not have to become more complex or be more advantageous to survival because the organism itself is in part intelligently and consciously directing their change in design by what it finds desirable in the variety available to select as a mate. Examples include the peacocks tail. In humans the looks of "sex symbols" sometimes computer enhanced to represent the conscious ideals not yet common in our morphology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So it's a combination of "Everything looks designed to me" and "Organisms intelligently control their own evolution".

The first part looks suspiciously like a non-falsifiable statement of faith.  

As for the second part: if only we could find a non-sexually-reproducing, unintelligent organism...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you even study the theory yet?

< http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/....pot.com >

Only reason I know for genuinely coming up with a statement like that, is cherry picking quotes to take out of context in order to try quickly brushing-off the theory.

That is clearly not what I said, and I don't have a hundred years to spoon feed ones who can't handle what is now K-12 level science.
Posted by: Freddie on Nov. 02 2012,17:07

Quoted from the link because this is even better shit - I got over half me boxes checked now, suckers ...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I just made a MAJOR rewrite that made it many times better! [CHECK]

The intro more pro-ID to match the added science being more a score for ID'ers.

It's still short, 3 paragraphs, but contains a lot more important science words [CHECK]. Previous concepts fit right in to strengthen it [CHECK].

Never packed so much science in such a small space before. Now has hyperlinks like crazy [CHECK] to NCBI and all over to expand out to enough science to learn to be a scientist knowing. Have to link to blog for those, too many to relink here. But here's the unlinked text at this point which might be easier to read after clicking on links makes it all multicolored [CHECK].
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note - the 'MAJOR rewrite' occurs approximately 80 minutes after the first version.  Some funny stuff.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 02 2012,17:13

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 02 2012,15:34)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:28)
We're still making good progress.  They were good questions to ask.  I was at least quickly able to give a short answer, then the replies that came back made it easier to elaborate.

From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework where there is no natural/supernatural dichotomy that makes the questions the same as asking whether you can tell the difference between apples and apples.  That is why I am now trying to explain what I right away saw.  Once you can look at it that way, you'll know what I'm talking about.  

I'll try to think of another way to explain it.  But the simple answer is that the way the science works out the intelligent designer also exists 24/7 in nature (especially through molecular intelligence) and all over the universe, not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.  

As in any scientific theory, something either exists or it does not.  Same here.  But that might at first seem impossible, I guess.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, is that a "pantheism" answer, or a "miracles happen all the time" answer, or a "God is a tinkerer" answer, or a "front-loading" answer? Or an "invisible holograms" answer?

Or an "I'm being deliberately obtuse because my theory is as insubstantial as a bird fart" answer?

The way what science works out, Gary? Where's the equation that points to the designer? You know, like:

E=mc2+YHWH

???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 02 2012,17:18

And in case the last link did not work on your PC here is the same with less resolution:


Posted by: Freddie on Nov. 02 2012,17:26

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,17:18)
And in case the last link did not work on your PC here is the same with less resolution:

<snip>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, it has exactly the same resolution (dots per inch) as in this case the resolution is a property of the display you are using to view the image.  It may, however, have a lower image quality than before, depending upon how much additional compression you used for the second image.  But being a coder you'd know all about that.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 02 2012,17:36

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,15:07)
Did you even study the theory yet?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My life is a finite period of time, Gary.  I'm not going to study a "theory" which can't be cogently summarised by its own author.  Sure, it may be a groundbreaking, paradigm-shattering  piece of work, but if you're not prepared to explain or discuss, it's indistinguishable from the ravings of a loony.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,15:07)
Only reason I know for genuinely coming up with a statement like that, is cherry picking quotes to take out of context in order to try quickly brushing-off the theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I quoted the entire statement you referenced.  If that constitutes "cherry-picking", you shouldn't have linked to it.  Do you have a summary you're prepared to stand by?
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,15:07)
That is clearly not what I said, and I don't have a hundred years to spoon feed ones who can't handle what is now K-12 level science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I know, you are Teh Super Genuis and we are not worthy.  Which K-12 schools are teaching your "theory" in science class?  Do tell.

For the nth and likely last time, because I've got more productive things to do: what is your theory?  "Go study it" is not an answer.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 02 2012,17:37

Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 02 2012,17:26)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,17:18)
And in case the last link did not work on your PC here is the same with less resolution:

<snip>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, it has exactly the same resolution (dots per inch) as in this case the resolution is a property of the display you are using to view the image.  It may, however, have a lower image quality than before, depending upon how much additional compression you used for the second image.  But being a coder you'd know all about that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, and after clicking to the reply to see how it looks outside the preview window the full resolution png file was not there anymore.  It came back though, after posting the jpg.  Now I'm stuck with two, but at least none should have a problem finding the math/logic that was demanded to be presented here.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 02 2012,17:41

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,15:18)
And in case the last link did not work on your PC here is the same with less resolution:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I take it back, Gary.  This is indeed a breakthrough.

I've never seen a Theory Of Everything which includes the word "nose" before.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 02 2012,17:50

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2012,17:41)
I've never seen a Theory Of Everything which includes the word "nose" before.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hopefully that indicates the terminology used is not over your head.  I kept it simple, because I could.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 02 2012,17:58

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 01 2012,21:35)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,16:58)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 31 2012,22:13)
   
All of that last bit quoted from you is speculation without the slightest grounding in empirical data.

As noted at the outset, you do not have the biology right concerning the citric acid cycle. You don't even get simple things right that Wikipedia gets right. Your use of a bizarre alternative citric acid cycle as a point of "verification" for your claims about "molecular intelligence" indicates that "molecular intelligence" is premised upon a biology that we know does not correspond to the terrestrial biology that we have on hand.

I can see a few scenarios following.

(1) Declare that you are actually describing the "real" citric acid cycle, never mind what Wikipedia and biologists have said, and that therefore no change in your concept of "molecular intelligence" is necessary. This leads others to further solidify a classification of you as a < Timecube >-like source of information.

(2) You alter your description of the citric acid cycle to come a little closer to actual observed biology but make no changes in your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads to others coming to a conclusion that either the example has no relevance to your concept (since such widely divergent descriptions of the example supposedly "verify" the same concept), or that the concept is detached from any empirical approach whatsoever.

(3) You excise the citric acid cycle as an example of "molecular intelligence" without altering your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads others to wonder why a supposed verification can be cut without consequence to the concept that supposedly was verified.

(4) You alter both your description of the citric acid cycle and your concept of "molecular intelligence" in such a way that the changes in the citric acid cycle description have clear correlated changes in the concept. This leads others to re-evaluate their initial assessments of your work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What you found is described in this and similar origin of life articles and papers that are referenced from the theory:

[...]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The issue is not whether you referenced sources; it is whether you understood them. The evidence says that you don't understand them. I've already seen the item in your list that was also referenced in the Wikipedia article. As I noted, it does not support your original description.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

There is more detail and this illustration in the full version of the theory:  

[...]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, yeah, you will also not find me opening up a Word document from some random guy on the Internet. Not going to happen, not without booting a Live CD of a Linux distribution or something of the sort. And I see no reason to go to the trouble of doing that.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I can now see how quickly summing it up that way can cause confusion.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have a remarkably obtuse way with words. The "confusion" is quite evidently that you haven't understood what your sources have to say about biological topics.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 Looks like I better include more detail, and put the illustration back in.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The problem is not a lack of detail, the problem is a lack of understanding and accuracy.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In the opposite direction of the cycle there is of course disassembly, as opposed to assembly.  

Another that better shows how the reverse cycle makes a structurally mirror image molecule that next splits in half is here:

[...]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have confused yourself. Let's review your statement:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You were talking about the citric acid cycle. Offering a graphic of the reverse citric acid cycle is not relevant to a claim concerning the citric acid cycle.

Plus, you need to be more specific: what step in the process are you claiming involves something that is split in half to produce two identical molecules? Where is it? What is the name of the dimer you are talking about?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The theory is correct in saying that this type of cycle is something that can be controlled, hence meets the first requirement of 4 that qualifies a system as intelligent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Big whoop. Stuff existing that *could* be controlled is not an issue. Finding stuff that *requires* a "designer" of the sort who also happens to have setting universal constants in his toolkit is.

At least we have resolved which response strategy you would select. You picked option (1), the "Timecube" emulation option. I'll adjust my opinion accordingly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary, you seem to have dropped a thread.

You used the citric acid cycle as an example verifying your concepts, except that what you described isn't the citric acid cycle.
Posted by: Freddie on Nov. 02 2012,18:08

Gary - I know of someone who is a leading light in the ID movement.  I have contacted him and he will be more than pleased to help you construct your theory and arguments more clearly, using many carefully structured paragraphs and stock phrases, and using indentations, PSs, colours, parentheses and PSs as well as copious PSs appropriately.

If you can travel tomorrow I have taken the liberty of buying you a business class ticket in advance ... just print and take this to the check-in counter for validation.



PS. Due to recent circumstances you might have to divert to the nearest island and take the Ferry over but, trust me, it will be safer.  If the worst does happen then at least you can rest safe in the sure knowledge that someone will be at hand to report on the crisis (minute by minute, with photographs).




Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 02 2012,18:11

Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 02 2012,16:08)
Gary - I know of someone who is a leading light in the ID movement.  I have contacted him and he will be more than pleased to help you construct your theory and arguments more clearly, using many carefully structured paragraphs and stock phrases, and using indentations, PSs, colours, parentheses and PSs as well as copious PSs appropriately.

If you can travel tomorrow I have taken the liberty of buying you a business class ticket in advance ... just print and take this to the check-in counter for validation.



PS. Due to recent circumstances you might have to divert to the nearest island and take the Ferry over but, trust me, it will be safer.  If the worst does happen then at least you can rest safe in the sure knowledge that someone will be at hand to report on the crisis (minute by minute, with photographs).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're a sick, evil bastard, Freddie.  I like you.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 02 2012,18:12

And if I had a hammer, everything would look like a nail.

Look, GG, just because you label something "intelligent" doesn't make it so.

Let's start at the bottom:

The "Behaviour of Matter" box.

By "matter" I'm guessing you mean organic and/or inorganic molecules? In a cell? Outside a cell/organism? Or matter that has been ingested?

What does "Address memory for next motor action" mean?

What "memory"?  What, exactly is it? Where do we find it? How big is it? How do we measure it?

What is doing the addressing?

What "motor"? You mean the behaviour of atoms and molecules that's already incorporated into modern chemistry and physics?

This is all just 21st-century steam-punk window-dressing for elan vital isn't it, Gary?

(okay i have to admit, this chew toy is fresh)
Posted by: Freddie on Nov. 02 2012,18:16

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 02 2012,18:12)
And if I had a hammer, everything would look like a nail.

Look, GG, just because you label something "intelligent" doesn't make it so.

Let's start at the bottom:

The "Behaviour of Matter" box.

By "matter" I'm guessing you mean organic and/or inorganic molecules? In a cell? Outside a cell/organism? Or matter that has been ingested?

What does "Address memory for next motor action" mean?

What "memory"?  What, exactly is it? Where do we find it? How big is it? How do we measure it?

What is doing the addressing?

What "motor"? You mean the behaviour of atoms and molecules that's already incorporated into modern chemistry and physics?

This is all just 21st-century steam-punk window-dressing for elan vital isn't it, Gary?

(okay i have to admit, this chew toy is fresh)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Judging by the silicon in his diagram I think he's trying to make one of these:


Posted by: Freddie on Nov. 02 2012,18:19

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2012,18:11)
Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 02 2012,16:08)
Gary - I know of someone who is a leading light in the ID movement.  I have contacted him and he will be more than pleased to help you construct your theory and arguments more clearly, using many carefully structured paragraphs and stock phrases, and using indentations, PSs, colours, parentheses and PSs as well as copious PSs appropriately.

If you can travel tomorrow I have taken the liberty of buying you a business class ticket in advance ... just print and take this to the check-in counter for validation.



PS. Due to recent circumstances you might have to divert to the nearest island and take the Ferry over but, trust me, it will be safer.  If the worst does happen then at least you can rest safe in the sure knowledge that someone will be at hand to report on the crisis (minute by minute, with photographs).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're a sick, evil bastard, Freddie.  I like you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I like you too, JohnW!

What's really sick is that this is the best thing I have to do on a Friday night - I have to get out more.

I would pay good money to see Gary Gaulin fight Gordon E. Mullings of Manjack Heights.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 02 2012,18:42

Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 02 2012,16:19)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2012,18:11)
Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 02 2012,16:08)
Gary - I know of someone who is a leading light in the ID movement.  I have contacted him and he will be more than pleased to help you construct your theory and arguments more clearly, using many carefully structured paragraphs and stock phrases, and using indentations, PSs, colours, parentheses and PSs as well as copious PSs appropriately.

If you can travel tomorrow I have taken the liberty of buying you a business class ticket in advance ... just print and take this to the check-in counter for validation.



PS. Due to recent circumstances you might have to divert to the nearest island and take the Ferry over but, trust me, it will be safer.  If the worst does happen then at least you can rest safe in the sure knowledge that someone will be at hand to report on the crisis (minute by minute, with photographs).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're a sick, evil bastard, Freddie.  I like you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I like you too, JohnW!

What's really sick is that this is the best thing I have to do on a Friday night - I have to get out more.

I would pay good money to see Gary Gaulin fight Gordon E. Mullings of Manjack Heights.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd like to see a Grand Unification of this theory with Booby Byers' "death by Satan, car crashes and the planet leaving its orbit" findings.  At last, a research program for ID...
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 02 2012,21:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It always amazes me to no end that people who find the Bible abhorent seem to focus only on the few instances where God commands a city destroyed.
- FTK
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Things like that make me wistful for the days of Peak Intelligent Design.


"My boy, did I ever tell you about the golden age? When the tard was as bountiful as the ocean, it sprung from the ground, it fell from the sky, it poured out of every nook and cranny, and it felt like it'd never run out. The disco tute pretended to fund science, and Doug Axe pretended to do it...code monkeys claimed to be better biologists than biologists...every week, a new calculation or Capitalized Term...You couldn't swing a cat without hitting a Luskin or a Cordova...ah, those were the days...."

"Have another highball, grampa, and leave me alone"
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 03 2012,02:25

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2012,16:42)
Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 02 2012,16:19)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2012,18:11)
 
Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 02 2012,16:08)
Gary - I know of someone who is a leading light in the ID movement.  I have contacted him and he will be more than pleased to help you construct your theory and arguments more clearly, using many carefully structured paragraphs and stock phrases, and using indentations, PSs, colours, parentheses and PSs as well as copious PSs appropriately.

If you can travel tomorrow I have taken the liberty of buying you a business class ticket in advance ... just print and take this to the check-in counter for validation.



PS. Due to recent circumstances you might have to divert to the nearest island and take the Ferry over but, trust me, it will be safer.  If the worst does happen then at least you can rest safe in the sure knowledge that someone will be at hand to report on the crisis (minute by minute, with photographs).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're a sick, evil bastard, Freddie.  I like you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I like you too, JohnW!

What's really sick is that this is the best thing I have to do on a Friday night - I have to get out more.

I would pay good money to see Gary Gaulin fight Gordon E. Mullings of Manjack Heights.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd like to see a Grand Unification of this theory with Booby Byers' "death by Satan, car crashes and the planet leaving its orbit" findings.  At last, a research program for ID...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You gotta get whatsisname's "invisible holograms" in there, too. An ID mashup, as it were.
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 03 2012,02:49

Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 02 2012,18:08)
Gary - I know of someone who is a leading light in the ID movement.  I have contacted him and he will be more than pleased to help you construct your theory and arguments more clearly, using many carefully structured paragraphs and stock phrases, and using indentations, PSs, colours, parentheses and PSs as well as copious PSs appropriately.

If you can travel tomorrow I have taken the liberty of buying you a business class ticket in advance ... just print and take this to the check-in counter for validation.



PS. Due to recent circumstances you might have to divert to the nearest island and take the Ferry over but, trust me, it will be safer.  If the worst does happen then at least you can rest safe in the sure knowledge that someone will be at hand to report on the crisis (minute by minute, with photographs).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Neither Boston nor Montserrat are on Planet Source Code. Still, POTW.
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 03 2012,04:35

Gary sweetie, you know that you would really go a long way if you just ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS regarding your uh.. ehm.. theory/programme/hypothesis/thing.

Sorry for insisting but the answers to the questions will give all of us here some very good insight into what it is you are going on about.

So here they are again, so you don't have to go searching for them.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between (answer yes/no):

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence
2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature
3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

If your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing is unable to detect difference then obviously your answer is "no" and you can add, if you want, an explanation.  But as I said before, a yes/no answer will suffice for now.

I'm sure you have made these distinctions in your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing or it would sign positive inference in anything and everything.

Ah one last thing if you wish to define terms such as "intelligent design" and "designed by nature" please feel free to do so. Just so you know if you use the above two as synonyms them you have a serious problem and we know where to start in addressing it.

Also it would also be really dandy if you could answer Wesley R. Elsberry and oldmanintheskydidntdoit.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 03 2012,06:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In general awe is directed at objects considered to be more powerful than the subject, such as the breaking of huge waves on the base of a rocky cliff, the thundering roar of a massive waterfall. The Great Pyramid of Giza, the Grand Canyon, or the vastness of open space in the cosmos are all places or concepts which would typically inspire awe. (Wikipedia)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Witnessing an exceptionally great mind in action is a privilege not bestowed on everyone. I stand in awe.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 03 2012,07:18

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 01 2012,21:35)

You have confused yourself. Let's review your statement:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I did not realize I still had one floating around from way back in 2009.  But I think you might have found a special one.  Let me check..

Yes!  It's the ID-free < Origin Of Intelligent Life blog, for Christmas! > that I made for Jack Krebs and others at the KCFS forum who hate ID.  The title “Origin Of Intelligent Life” was a good clue it is not the “Theory of Intelligent Design”.  

With this illustration there too it's clearly visually showing what I am explaining.  At most missing the symbiosis part about the forward cycle gaining energy by undoing the assembly work of the reverse Krebs that can then assemble more:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Control Of Krebs Cycle By Molecular Intelligence

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.



At any stage through the assembly cycle a molecule of proper fit may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby self-assembly interaction to where it fits. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.[11][12]

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it. A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No versions mention citric acid cycle.  I make sure (Jack) Krebs is there, like he should be.  But since you do not believe that it is important to first study the theory you are supposed to be fairly judging it is no wonder I'm stuck in another henpecking semantics argument and this even though there was also a link to view in Google-Viewer at the < Theory of ID > download address:

     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 01 2012,21:35)
Oh, yeah, you will also not find me opening up a Word document from some random guy on the Internet. Not going to happen, not without booting a Live CD of a Linux distribution or something of the sort. And I see no reason to go to the trouble of doing that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I must say, that at least your timing goes perfect with the link to the movie trailer for the new Christmas movie.   Here I am trying to explain Heiserman, Trebub, and others known all over intelligence related sciences.  It’s very basic material, not PhD level stuff.  It’s already a damn shame in the first place that someone promoting themselves as an expert in how intelligence works does not even know modern day basics kids know about too these days because of resources like < BEAM (Biology, Electronics, Aesthetics, Mechanics) > where David Heiserman and others are found.  And considering you are supposed to know all about what’s going on, not knowing who I am does not score any points in the science arena either.  And resorting to intellectual snobbery was a dumb idea.  But picking the ID-free chewtoy was in my opinion brilliant!

Under your scientific leadership, the kids of the world were at least immediately in danger of being scientifically bored to death.  I do though take the years old topics that linger in the forums as more evidence that the ID controversy actually ended around 2009.  With the theory working out scientifically there was no need for political protest, had science work instead.  Kathy had to make sure teachers in her district knew about the self-assembly demonstration via copy-machine, while kept things interesting at the KCFS forum for more original ideas for science teachers, that came from the wreckage of the hearing that went bad for them.  It’s hard not to be impressed.  And where students soon giggle because you can’t figure out what they already know, it’s a compliment to whoever could have them understanding all that by high school, and the students too of course.

At least (quality over quantity) Jack has no need to envy all the traffic this forum received over the years.  Or worry all that much about ones most ahead right now in understanding the theory include Kansan creationists that he was on a mission to scientifically educate, somehow.   Having the whole “Theory of Intelligent Design” pop out of the incubator is now just indication of unimaginable success.  Not that the ID-free “Origin of Intelligent Life” wasn’t also a great idea and novel Christmas gift, for a science forum that normally gets nothing for Christmas at all.  I'm at least thrilled to see that you had no problem finding it either.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 03 2012,07:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
With the theory working out scientifically
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For example?
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 03 2012,08:11

What is this guy on about? I literally have no idea.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 03 2012,08:40

Some variant on everything is conscious I think.
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 03 2012,08:44

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 03 2012,08:11)
What is this guy on about? I literally have no idea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah.  He's like KF with images.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 03 2012,08:46

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 03 2012,04:35)
Gary sweetie, you know that you would really go a long way if you just ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS regarding your uh.. ehm.. theory/programme/hypothesis/thing.

Sorry for insisting but the answers to the questions will give all of us here some very good insight into what it is you are going on about.

So here they are again, so you don't have to go searching for them.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between (answer yes/no):

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence
2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature
3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

If your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing is unable to detect difference then obviously your answer is "no" and you can add, if you want, an explanation.  But as I said before, a yes/no answer will suffice for now.

I'm sure you have made these distinctions in your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing or it would sign positive inference in anything and everything.

Ah one last thing if you wish to define terms such as "intelligent design" and "designed by nature" please feel free to do so. Just so you know if you use the above two as synonyms them you have a serious problem and we know where to start in addressing it.

Also it would also be really dandy if you could answer Wesley R. Elsberry and oldmanintheskydidntdoit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The best I can do is say that if the intelligence is not the source of what you qualified as "random" then answer to one is yes.

Number 2 and 3 are still as ambiguous.  End up reading:  

2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by an apple
3) a sequence designed by apple and a sequence that is apple designed

Without further information, it's nonsense to the theory.  The problem is in expecting scientific yes/no answers to questions that likely assume there is no intelligence in nature yet intelligence exists naturally, so right away there are paradoxes that only help show why ID arguments like this are inherently nonsensical to even ask.  And I'm honestly not trying to be evasive.  The logic of the theory requires unambiguous yes/no questions to answer, not generalizations from philosophy like "nature" and "designed by nature".

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......osophy) >

Philosophy is not science.  Therefore the second two are not even scientific questions, they are philosophical questions.  At their core, are questions that begin here, which do agree with theory:

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....S5IrO0I >
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 03 2012,08:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Number 2 and 3 are still as ambiguous.  End up reading:  

2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by an apple
3) a sequence designed by apple and a sequence that is apple designed
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wow.  You are dumb.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 03 2012,09:05

It's a great time for this required (for some) study video, that should be easy for all to get through too:

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 03 2012,08:11)
What is this guy on about? I literally have no idea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....GA_rIls >
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 03 2012,09:10

this is all about surfing?  that actually makes more sense than it being about science....
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 03 2012,10:02

If this guy starts ending his comments with "I love it so" and asking about my frugivorous predilections, it would clarify things, I think.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 03 2012,10:06

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 03 2012,09:10)
this is all about surfing?  that actually makes more sense than it being about science....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are now in the middle of a culture war that is older than the Discovery Institute and expected to go on forever, and in any hands the Theory of Intelligent Design is one of those things that accidentally lights fuses of one kind or another, wherever it goes.  Already had enough wreckage to clean up.  Some here seriously need immediate music appreciation lessons, real bad.

In the Sheryl Crow Soak Up The Sun song/video the main message is to LIGHTEN UP!!!  Especially when I'm still the king of me, you have a fancy ride, but baby I'm the one who has the key.

In this more intense one, what do you see happening in the (commercial free) Muse - Uprising video?

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....mps-Sog >
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 03 2012,10:13

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,06:46)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 03 2012,04:35)
Gary sweetie, you know that you would really go a long way if you just ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS regarding your uh.. ehm.. theory/programme/hypothesis/thing.

Sorry for insisting but the answers to the questions will give all of us here some very good insight into what it is you are going on about.

So here they are again, so you don't have to go searching for them.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between (answer yes/no):

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence
2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature
3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

If your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing is unable to detect difference then obviously your answer is "no" and you can add, if you want, an explanation.  But as I said before, a yes/no answer will suffice for now.

I'm sure you have made these distinctions in your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing or it would sign positive inference in anything and everything.

Ah one last thing if you wish to define terms such as "intelligent design" and "designed by nature" please feel free to do so. Just so you know if you use the above two as synonyms them you have a serious problem and we know where to start in addressing it.

Also it would also be really dandy if you could answer Wesley R. Elsberry and oldmanintheskydidntdoit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The best I can do is say that if the intelligence is not the source of what you qualified as "random" then answer to one is yes.

Number 2 and 3 are still as ambiguous.  End up reading:  

2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by an apple
3) a sequence designed by apple and a sequence that is apple designed

Without further information, it's nonsense to the theory.  The problem is in expecting scientific yes/no answers to questions that likely assume there is no intelligence in nature yet intelligence exists naturally, so right away there are paradoxes that only help show why ID arguments like this are inherently nonsensical to even ask.  And I'm honestly not trying to be evasive.  The logic of the theory requires unambiguous yes/no questions to answer, not generalizations from philosophy like "nature" and "designed by nature".

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......osophy) >

Philosophy is not science.  Therefore the second two are not even scientific questions, they are philosophical questions.  At their core, are questions that begin here, which do agree with theory:

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....S5IrO0I >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary, one of the main arguments for "ID" is the alleged presence and scientific measurability of "CSI", "FSCI", "dFSCI", and/or "dFSCI/O" in things in nature. Therefor, questions about alleged "CSI", "FSCI", "dFSCI", and/or "dFSCI/O" should be considered scientific by you and all other ID proponents.

So, can and will you measure the alleged CSI, FSCI, dFSCI, or dFSCI/O in a banana, a frog, and a rock and show your calculations?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 03 2012,10:13

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,11:06)
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 03 2012,09:10)
this is all about surfing?  that actually makes more sense than it being about science....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are now in the middle of a culture war that is older than the Discovery Institute and expected to go on forever,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True enough. What we are decidedly *not* in the middle of though, is a scientific debate.

What we are most decidedly *not* in the middle of with you, specifically, is a scientific controversy or even discussion. You're not doing science, your word salad has no meaning, and no one is taking you seriously.

You don't know what a theory is, you can't convey a coherent thought about seemingly anything, and you don't know the Citric Acid Cycle from the fucking spin cycle. Yet, you think you're about to overturn 150 years of real biological research in favor of.. what, exactly? Goddunnit? Consciousnessdunnit?
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 03 2012,11:09

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,08:46)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 03 2012,04:35)

The best I can do is say that if the intelligence is not the source of what you qualified as "random" then answer to one is yes.

Number 2 and 3 are still as ambiguous.  End up reading:  

2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by an apple
3) a sequence designed by apple and a sequence that is apple designed

Without further information, it's nonsense to the theory.  The problem is in expecting scientific yes/no answers to questions that likely assume there is no intelligence in nature yet intelligence exists naturally, so right away there are paradoxes that only help show why ID arguments like this are inherently nonsensical to even ask.  And I'm honestly not trying to be evasive.  The logic of the theory requires unambiguous yes/no questions to answer, not generalizations from philosophy like "nature" and "designed by nature".

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......osophy) >

Philosophy is not science.  Therefore the second two are not even scientific questions, they are philosophical questions.  At their core, are questions that begin here, which do agree with theory:

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....S5IrO0I >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay here is an example of 1

here I present two nucleotide sequences one is random the other is designed by me (an inteligent agent). Please indicate which is which and show us your work:

A) GGC GTT ACTC
B) GGG CTT ATCC


i'll put examples of 2 and 3 lets see if it will help:

2) a random sequence and a sequence found in nature.

Here is an example again one sequence is random the other exists in nature: Which is which.

A) ACT CGT CGTG
B) GAT CTC CGTG

3) a sequence found in nature and one created by an inteligent agent..

Here is another set of sequences, one exists in nature the other is created by an intelligent agent (me): Which is which.

A) CCG AGT TCAA
B) GCC ATG AACT
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 03 2012,12:30

If my attempt at translating Gaulinese into English is close, I think he's just basically saying "everything is designed".

He just doesn't have the balls/wit/language skills to come right out and say it.
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 03 2012,13:16

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 03 2012,11:02)
If this guy starts ending his comments with "I love it so" and asking about my frugivorous predilections, it would clarify things, I think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I actually was reminded a bit of JAD, the way he's focused on Jack Krebs for instance.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 03 2012,13:25

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 03 2012,07:44)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
With the theory working out scientifically
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For example?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For that example we must begin with the < Kansas Board Of Education public hearing for the Theory of Intelligent Design as was also reported by PBS > after the Discovery Institute followed official procedure to make a change in a few sentences, that did not change much but it's a "foot in the door" all took very seriously.  Their paperwork was all there, so the next step is to have an open to the public (I think they all are public anyway) hearing to explain it to everyone, then decision is later made whether to accept or reject the proposed changes.

The "majority" side of board wanted to not take it seriously.  The "minority" side much included Kathy.  She and others saw no harm in having the DI come to Kansas to personally answer all the questions the people she was elected to serve had for them and "scientists" who said something else about the theory at the center of the controversy.  The question was whether the theory needing state standards changes had any scientific merit/usefulness in the Kansas Public School science classrooms.  It was obvious that the theory was controversial but the way US education laws and ethics are concerned the taxpayer (in class represented by students teachers are paid to serve) must have the final say in whether it is science or not.

In this rare case "scientists" are legally and ethically way over the line by trying to circumvent that process.  Same goes for the Discovery Institute that gets equal time to answer questions from the public.

The boycott by "scientists" left the public hearing unresolved.  The KCFS forum became where the public issue went after that to hopefully be resolved through there instead.  It took years to get this far.  In hindsight Kathy and others who expected a "fair-hearing" for the theory can easily accept that it could not be decided right there.  We all needed patience to resolve this one, and by my later giving the theory a fair hearing at the KCFS forum, regardless of it making Jack and others nervous by giving the other side so many ideas and such that way.

It's still as bad now as it was way back then to try deciding this one for Kansas public school system.  Get back for a message the Metallica - King Nothing song, from signals you're trying to interfering.  I make sure that I don't expect public school taxpayers to treat me any differently.  I just put what I have on the proverbial table to be fairly judged, then hope it's liked.  I stayed out of trouble that way.

What "scientists" think of the theory, is here genuinely irrelevant.  And there is nothing wrong with that, science likes it messy anyway.  So the way the science game is played with this one, how well the theory is working out scientifically is up to the public school taxpayers to decide.  Neither student or teacher needs a special board hearing or permission to bring to class something they can find on Planet Source Code these days.  Don't need a journal tribunal just students and teachers who like it, and teachers do.  One of the best compliments used "jam packed" to describe it.  The theory has a little bit of everything, but not so much that it's beyond a good K-12 education level.  That's what's important, and why it's doing very well in science via science classroom and how-to community that loves that sort of model/theory too.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 03 2012,13:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For that example we must begin with the Kansas Board Of Education public hearing for the Theory of Intelligent Design as was also reported by PBS after the Discovery Institute followed official procedure to make a change in a few sentences, that did not change much but it's a "foot in the door" all took very seriously.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



BZZZTT!

Wrong!

Please try again. That is not the "theory working out scientifically" is it?

Science is not run from Kansas.

If you don't have any scientific progress then the theory (of ID) is  hardly working out scientifically is it? And your claim is therefore wrong.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Same goes for the Discovery Institute that gets equal time to answer questions from the public.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Going to play that game are we? Well, again, it's irrelevant You made a specific claim, that the theory of ID is working out scientifically. And when asked for evidence for that claim you pull out the Kansas school system?

Try and focus Gary.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What "scientists" think of the theory, is here genuinely irrelevant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And yet here you are. And it's funny how you put "scientists" in scare quotes as when I asked you for scientific evidence for your scientific claim you come up with culture war bullshit.

So all that's genuinely irrelevant are your answers to my questions.


Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 03 2012,14:44

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 03 2012,10:13)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,06:46)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 03 2012,04:35)
Gary sweetie, you know that you would really go a long way if you just ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS regarding your uh.. ehm.. theory/programme/hypothesis/thing.

Sorry for insisting but the answers to the questions will give all of us here some very good insight into what it is you are going on about.

So here they are again, so you don't have to go searching for them.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between (answer yes/no):

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence
2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature
3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

If your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing is unable to detect difference then obviously your answer is "no" and you can add, if you want, an explanation.  But as I said before, a yes/no answer will suffice for now.

I'm sure you have made these distinctions in your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing or it would sign positive inference in anything and everything.

Ah one last thing if you wish to define terms such as "intelligent design" and "designed by nature" please feel free to do so. Just so you know if you use the above two as synonyms them you have a serious problem and we know where to start in addressing it.

Also it would also be really dandy if you could answer Wesley R. Elsberry and oldmanintheskydidntdoit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The best I can do is say that if the intelligence is not the source of what you qualified as "random" then answer to one is yes.

Number 2 and 3 are still as ambiguous.  End up reading:  

2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by an apple
3) a sequence designed by apple and a sequence that is apple designed

Without further information, it's nonsense to the theory.  The problem is in expecting scientific yes/no answers to questions that likely assume there is no intelligence in nature yet intelligence exists naturally, so right away there are paradoxes that only help show why ID arguments like this are inherently nonsensical to even ask.  And I'm honestly not trying to be evasive.  The logic of the theory requires unambiguous yes/no questions to answer, not generalizations from philosophy like "nature" and "designed by nature".

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......osophy) >

Philosophy is not science.  Therefore the second two are not even scientific questions, they are philosophical questions.  At their core, are questions that begin here, which do agree with theory:

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....S5IrO0I >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary, one of the main arguments for "ID" is the alleged presence and scientific measurability of "CSI", "FSCI", "dFSCI", and/or "dFSCI/O" in things in nature. Therefor, questions about alleged "CSI", "FSCI", "dFSCI", and/or "dFSCI/O" should be considered scientific by you and all other ID proponents.

So, can and will you measure the alleged CSI, FSCI, dFSCI, or dFSCI/O in a banana, a frog, and a rock and show your calculations?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them.  There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method.  For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces.  I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work.  Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found.  There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet.  I would not rule it out though.
Posted by: Freddie on Nov. 03 2012,14:59

Gary:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the best compliments used "jam packed" to describe it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Original quote (probably):



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dude, this whole website is jam-packed top to bottom with bullshit phrases and gobbledegook, what the hell are you on? Get help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 03 2012,15:03

Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 02 2012,19:08)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




oh man

i knew this thread would eventually have to go SOMEWHERE worth a shit LOL
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 03 2012,15:07

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 03 2012,09:44)
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 03 2012,08:11)
What is this guy on about? I literally have no idea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah.  He's like KF with images.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 03 2012,15:08

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 03 2012,13:32)
Try and focus Gary.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had no problem noticing that you have no coherent explanation at all for the phenomenon of "intelligent cause" and are mucking up the playing field spitting out sour grapes all over it.  You did not even figure out that I put "scientists" in quotes that scare you (like I did board "minority" and "majority") because that is the given name for the team that you think you're helping, by fumbling.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 03 2012,15:14

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,16:08)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 03 2012,13:32)
Try and focus Gary.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had no problem noticing that you have no coherent explanation at all for the phenomenon of "intelligent cause" and are mucking up the playing field spitting out sour grapes all over it.  You did not even figure out that I put "scientists" in quotes that scare you (like I did board "minority" and "majority") because that is the given name for the team that you think you're helping, by fumbling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah well I had no problem noticingthat YOU have no coherent explanation at all for the phenomenon of Truck-Nutz andare mucking up the playing field spitting out sour balls all over it.  You did not even figure out that I already laughed my ass off at this thread before you made this comment so that should preclude me from laughing it off again but the fact that I just did explains your "intelligent cause"



Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 03 2012,15:22

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....pYxkU-U >
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 03 2012,15:36

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,15:44)
The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them.  There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method.  For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces.  I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work.  Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found.  There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet.  I would not rule it out though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is just straight up gibberish.

Gary we have no idea what you are trying to say. The only thing you've said that is remotely coherent is that you seem to think the Kansas BoE wanting to put creationism in the schools means that ID is 'working out scientifically'. If that's what you think, you're out to lunch, man.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 03 2012,16:11

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 03 2012,15:36)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,15:44)
The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them.  There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method.  For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces.  I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work.  Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found.  There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet.  I would not rule it out though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is just straight up gibberish.

Gary we have no idea what you are trying to say. The only thing you've said that is remotely coherent is that you seem to think the Kansas BoE wanting to put creationism in the schools means that ID is 'working out scientifically'. If that's what you think, you're out to lunch, man.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are now talking about separation of church and state, that was successfully used in Dover.  What got the Discovery Institute there, was not having a theory with experiments/demonstrations that explain a mechanism for Intelligent Cause.  

For your plan to work as a counter-tactic you here have to in court show that the Intelligence Design Lab and its documentation is from religious scripture instead of from Heiserman, Trehub, and other researchers and research that is linked to from the theory.  By the time the judge finishes reading it, they will be wondering how any sane person would even want to try stopping public schools from teaching science.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 03 2012,16:48

Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 03 2012,14:59)
Gary:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the best compliments used "jam packed" to describe it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Original quote (probably):



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dude, this whole website is jam-packed top to bottom with bullshit phrases and gobbledegook, what the hell are you on? Get help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At the time it all still fit as a single opening post for a topic.  The exact phrase became "Jam packed-post".  Here's the link:  

< http://www.teacherfocus.com/science....st42841 >
Posted by: midwifetoad on Nov. 03 2012,16:53

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 03 2012,15:36)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,15:44)
The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them.  There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method.  For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces.  I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work.  Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found.  There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet.  I would not rule it out though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is just straight up gibberish.

Gary we have no idea what you are trying to say. The only thing you've said that is remotely coherent is that you seem to think the Kansas BoE wanting to put creationism in the schools means that ID is 'working out scientifically'. If that's what you think, you're out to lunch, man.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps Gary has a future as an editor at Social Text.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 03 2012,17:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For your plan to work as a counter-tactic you here have to in court show that the Intelligence Design Lab and its documentation is from religious scripture instead of from Heiserman, Trehub, and other researchers and research that is linked to from the theory.  By the time the judge finishes reading it, they will be wondering how any sane person would even want to try stopping public schools from teaching science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's already happened. You lot lost. Get over it already!

If/when it comes to court again, guess what. You'll lose again! And again!
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 03 2012,17:36

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 03 2012,17:02)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For your plan to work as a counter-tactic you here have to in court show that the Intelligence Design Lab and its documentation is from religious scripture instead of from Heiserman, Trehub, and other researchers and research that is linked to from the theory.  By the time the judge finishes reading it, they will be wondering how any sane person would even want to try stopping public schools from teaching science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's already happened. You lot lost. Get over it already!

If/when it comes to court again, guess what. You'll lose again! And again!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, and the Dover, PA ruling by Judge Jones was only against the actions of their school board (that read a statement against another theory in classrooms and had creationism books in school library) not against the "Theory of Intelligent Design".   As long as the teachers stick to the science that is in the theory it is legal to teach in any US public school district, including Dover's.  Some states even enacted bills to protect teachers from being harassed for (within bounds of science) teaching it.  Hence this makes sense: < Jimmy Eat World - My Best Theory >
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 03 2012,17:39

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,17:11)
For your plan to work as a counter-tactic
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't have a plan. I have no idea what you're talking about and nobody else does either. We've had lots of creationists here, but you're the first where we literally can't make out what you're trying to communicate.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 03 2012,17:40

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 03 2012,14:16)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 03 2012,11:02)
If this guy starts ending his comments with "I love it so" and asking about my frugivorous predilections, it would clarify things, I think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I actually was reminded a bit of JAD, the way he's focused on Jack Krebs for instance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


btw, you know he kicked the bucket, right?
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 03 2012,17:55

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 03 2012,17:40)
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 03 2012,14:16)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 03 2012,11:02)
If this guy starts ending his comments with "I love it so" and asking about my frugivorous predilections, it would clarify things, I think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I actually was reminded a bit of JAD, the way he's focused on Jack Krebs for instance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


btw, you know he kicked the bucket, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who exactly?
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 03 2012,18:24

Thanks to google docs, < linky > I just read his entire manifesto. 40+ pages. It was pretty boring. There were a few choice bits:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One example of when things go wrong is occasionally reported by ranchers who have a problem
with a wild moose that thinks they are a cow, or at least would rather prefer to be with a herd
where they don’t belong. This identity crisis might be further complicated by loneliness and being
safer in a herd with other animals, so even where the moose knows they are somewhat different
a lonely moose may still prefer company of cows. Regardless of their reasons for changing specie
identity, keeping such a giant easily angered animal out of the herd where they think they belong
is not easy. Where left to roam with the cows the moose cannot parent any calves, which helps
explain why there are not many moose with such a serious species self-recognition problem. Cows
who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose
because they cannot see the difference either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



but in general just kind of pointless and boring. And I don't think English is his first language.

Synopsis:

Take a bunch of Origin of Life, Geochem 101,  genetics 101 pop sci books and splice excerpts together. Add 10 pages of explanation and code about how to run a computer model simulation he has of a very simple bug. This section kind of ends with no explanation of the point of any of it. Claims that anything that has anything analogous to a memory of a previous state and exhibits stimulus response behavior, with occasional 'guesses' thrown in, is intelligent. Thus, chemical cycles, cells, multicellular creatures, and humans all exhibit intelligence.

There's no theory of intelligent design here. He just kind of claims that anything that acts interesting or complicated Is intelligent. That's it. The whole thing just kind of stops with no conclusion, no wrap-up, nothing. Gary's got no theory, not even an argument at all as far as I can tell.
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 03 2012,18:25

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 03 2012,18:40)
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 03 2012,14:16)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 03 2012,11:02)
If this guy starts ending his comments with "I love it so" and asking about my frugivorous predilections, it would clarify things, I think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I actually was reminded a bit of JAD, the way he's focused on Jack Krebs for instance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


btw, you know he kicked the bucket, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was keeping some distance, I wasn't living in a cave :-p
Posted by: Freddie on Nov. 03 2012,18:37

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,16:48)
 
Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 03 2012,14:59)
Gary:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the best compliments used "jam packed" to describe it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Original quote (probably):

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dude, this whole website is jam-packed top to bottom with bullshit phrases and gobbledegook, what the hell are you on? Get help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At the time it all still fit as a single opening post for a topic.  The exact phrase became "Jam packed-post".  Here's the link:  

< http://www.teacherfocus.com/science....st42841 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is the best you got?  After all those thousands of words in the OP? Notice the careful use of punctuation in the first paragraph:


Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 03 2012,18:57

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 03 2012,17:39)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,17:11)
For your plan to work as a counter-tactic
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't have a plan. I have no idea what you're talking about and nobody else does either. We've had lots of creationists here, but you're the first where we literally can't make out what you're trying to communicate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't intend to suggest that you had some diabolical plan or anything.  You mentioned a possible strategy against the theory, that I needed to explain by going over the most likely outcome of trying it for real.  Proposing the strategy made you the (for sake of discussion) opponent against mine.

My being the first creationist you can't make out (what I'm trying to communicate) is probably because I'm not your usual creationist.  In fact, at one time I would have been insulted to be called that.  But after having been at the same time complimented (not out to fleece the flock) I accepted the new stereotype that fate had given me.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 03 2012,19:05

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 03 2012,18:24)
Thanks to google docs, < linky > I just read his entire manifesto. 40+ pages. It was pretty boring. There were a few choice bits:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One example of when things go wrong is occasionally reported by ranchers who have a problem
with a wild moose that thinks they are a cow, or at least would rather prefer to be with a herd
where they don’t belong. This identity crisis might be further complicated by loneliness and being
safer in a herd with other animals, so even where the moose knows they are somewhat different
a lonely moose may still prefer company of cows. Regardless of their reasons for changing specie
identity, keeping such a giant easily angered animal out of the herd where they think they belong
is not easy. Where left to roam with the cows the moose cannot parent any calves, which helps
explain why there are not many moose with such a serious species self-recognition problem. Cows
who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose
because they cannot see the difference either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



but in general just kind of pointless and boring. And I don't think English is his first language.

Synopsis:

Take a bunch of Origin of Life, Geochem 101,  genetics 101 pop sci books and splice excerpts together. Add 10 pages of explanation and code about how to run a computer model simulation he has of a very simple bug. This section kind of ends with no explanation of the point of any of it. Claims that anything that has anything analogous to a memory of a previous state and exhibits stimulus response behavior, with occasional 'guesses' thrown in, is intelligent. Thus, chemical cycles, cells, multicellular creatures, and humans all exhibit intelligence.

There's no theory of intelligent design here. He just kind of claims that anything that acts interesting or complicated Is intelligent. That's it. The whole thing just kind of stops with no conclusion, no wrap-up, nothing. Gary's got no theory, not even an argument at all as far as I can tell.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It sounds like you are saying I need to make the punch-lines show up better, and use more expression.  Is this sentence better?

Cows who know a moose when they see one, will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose, because they cannot see the difference either!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 03 2012,19:17

No, I think (and pardon me if i speak for the unspoken) we are saying, what the fuck are you even talking about

and you say refer to the always linked

*yawn*

let me try to help gary.  imagine i am your semi-retarded nephew.  explain your "theory" to me on a 5th grade level.  can you do that without referencing Dover, Kansas, or youtube?
Posted by: Woodbine on Nov. 03 2012,21:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The phrase “natural selection” is a subjective generalization that is impossible to precisely quantify. This theory instead requires specific terminology from cognitive science to be able to explain the tenacious self-learning mechanisms of intelligent living things which more specifically "learn" (not select/selected) and can take a "guess” (not mutate) and over time physically “develop” (not evolve). It is this way able to explain what is most important to know about how our brain works, cellular intelligence with flagella and other systems requiring cognitive control, living genomes where each replication cycle is analogous to one thought cycle over billion years of intelligently working on the design problem becoming human (and all the other living-things) presents, to creation by nonrandom behavior of matter that we are a conscious expression of. The entire universe (and all in it) is emergent from behavior of matter obeying nonrandom physical laws (laws of physics) therefore all “features” of the universe and of living things are here best explained by starting with this premise that requires explaining how “intelligent cause” works.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clear as mud.

Gary, even you can't have failed to notice that on every forum you've posted your 'theory' (and there have been a lot) you encounter the same complaint - nobody understands what on Earth you are talking about. Your 'theory' as presented is gibberish. And the fact you persist in advertising your Planet Source Code award tells me that you are labouring under the delusion that this award in some way validates the 40 pages of rambling you call your 'theory'. It doesn't.

For how many more years and on how many more forums are you going to post this stuff, Gary, before all this sinks in?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 03 2012,22:56

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 03 2012,21:36)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The phrase “natural selection” is a subjective generalization that is impossible to precisely quantify. This theory instead requires specific terminology from cognitive science to be able to explain the tenacious self-learning mechanisms of intelligent living things which more specifically "learn" (not select/selected) and can take a "guess” (not mutate) and over time physically “develop” (not evolve). It is this way able to explain what is most important to know about how our brain works, cellular intelligence with flagella and other systems requiring cognitive control, living genomes where each replication cycle is analogous to one thought cycle over billion years of intelligently working on the design problem becoming human (and all the other living-things) presents, to creation by nonrandom behavior of matter that we are a conscious expression of. The entire universe (and all in it) is emergent from behavior of matter obeying nonrandom physical laws (laws of physics) therefore all “features” of the universe and of living things are here best explained by starting with this premise that requires explaining how “intelligent cause” works.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clear as mud.

Gary, even you can't have failed to notice that on every forum you've posted your 'theory' (and there have been a lot) you encounter the same complaint - nobody understands what on Earth you are talking about. Your 'theory' as presented is gibberish. And the fact you persist in advertising your Planet Source Code award tells me that you are labouring under the delusion that this award in some way validates the 40 pages of rambling you call your 'theory'. It doesn't.

For how many more years and on how many more forums are you going to post this stuff, Gary, before all this sinks in?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reading GaGa's word salad I'm reminded of the old joke:

A horny young woman decides she wants to get laid by a real he-man.  She goes to a biker bar and picks up the biggest, baddest Harley dude in the house.  They get back to her place and she goes to change into a nightie.  When she comes back the biker has his jeans off and he's sporting this miniscule 2" erection.  "Who in the world do you expect to satisfy with that tiny thing?" cried the disappointed damsel.

The biker replied "......me."
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 04 2012,00:31

Gary, I guess the ID-friendly journal < Bio-Complexity > will appreciate your work. Here are its editorial policies:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Purpose

BIO-Complexity is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a unique goal. It aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life. Because questions having to do with the role and origin of information in living systems are at the heart of the scientific controversy over ID, these topics—viewed from all angles and perspectives—are central to the journal's scope.

To achieve its aim, BIO-Complexity is founded on the principle of critical exchange that makes science work.  Specifically, the journal enlists editors and reviewers with scientific expertise in relevant fields who hold a wide range of views on the merit of ID, but who agree on the importance of science for resolving controversies of this kind. Our editors use expert peer review, guided by their own judgement, to decide whether submitted work merits consideration and critique. BIO-Complexity aims not merely to publish work that meets this standard, but also to provide expert critical commentary on it.

Scope

BIO-Complexity publishes studies in all areas of science with clear relevance to its aim, including work focusing on the relative merit of any of the principal alternatives to ID (neo-Darwinism, self-organization, evolutionary developmental biology, etc.).  Among the topics of interest are: the origin or characterization of complex biological sequences, structures, forms, functions and processes; pre-biotic chemistry and the origin of life; molecular or morphologic phylogenies and phylogenetic methods; new molecular or morphologic data including paleontological data; cladistics and systematics; biomimetic or engineering analyses of biological systems; in vitro and laboratory evolution; evolutionary simulation and computational evolution. Theoretical or mathematical treatments of complexity or information with clear relevance to the journal's aims are also welcome.

Although philosophical works will not be included as Research Articles, the subject matter does call for occasional articles of a more reflective nature.  These will typically be invited contributions from authors whose opinions are judged to be of broad interest, which will be published as Critical Reviews.  BIO-Complexity will consider for publication only work that adheres to widely accepted modes of scientific investigation and inference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 04 2012,02:15

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 04 2012,00:31)
Gary, I guess the ID-friendly journal < Bio-Complexity > will appreciate your work. Here are its editorial policies:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Purpose

BIO-Complexity is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a unique goal. It aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life. Because questions having to do with the role and origin of information in living systems are at the heart of the scientific controversy over ID, these topics—viewed from all angles and perspectives—are central to the journal's scope.

To achieve its aim, BIO-Complexity is founded on the principle of critical exchange that makes science work.  Specifically, the journal enlists editors and reviewers with scientific expertise in relevant fields who hold a wide range of views on the merit of ID, but who agree on the importance of science for resolving controversies of this kind. Our editors use expert peer review, guided by their own judgement, to decide whether submitted work merits consideration and critique. BIO-Complexity aims not merely to publish work that meets this standard, but also to provide expert critical commentary on it.

Scope

BIO-Complexity publishes studies in all areas of science with clear relevance to its aim, including work focusing on the relative merit of any of the principal alternatives to ID (neo-Darwinism, self-organization, evolutionary developmental biology, etc.).  Among the topics of interest are: the origin or characterization of complex biological sequences, structures, forms, functions and processes; pre-biotic chemistry and the origin of life; molecular or morphologic phylogenies and phylogenetic methods; new molecular or morphologic data including paleontological data; cladistics and systematics; biomimetic or engineering analyses of biological systems; in vitro and laboratory evolution; evolutionary simulation and computational evolution. Theoretical or mathematical treatments of complexity or information with clear relevance to the journal's aims are also welcome.

Although philosophical works will not be included as Research Articles, the subject matter does call for occasional articles of a more reflective nature.  These will typically be invited contributions from authors whose opinions are judged to be of broad interest, which will be published as Critical Reviews.  BIO-Complexity will consider for publication only work that adheres to widely accepted modes of scientific investigation and inference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I talked to Matti.  The theory is way too long for an article or paper.  Like Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein and all the rest, it needs to be published in book form.  That's when I started on the most recent text (TheoryOfID.doc) which is now 50+ pages long.  After adding in the remaining illustrations that it needs (including a new fwd/reverse Krebs to show molecular mirroring) the shortest possible length is around 70 pages.

BioComplexity is good for short presentations like this one for "The Lignin Enigma":

< http://bio-complexity.org/ojs.........2012.3 >

My problem still boils down to this theory being a 1000 times more challenging than a research type paper, article or review.  

Charles Darwin had it easy.  He only had to explain a cursory observation that indicated living things changed over time.  In my case I needed a cognitive model to explain how intelligence and intelligent cause works at emergent  levels into (at least) the molecular.  The computer model part alone required many thousands of hours of experimentation and coding, on top of all else that had to (for the first time) be figured out then explained in a way that it can next be experimented with by others (i.e. online at Planet Source Code too).
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 04 2012,02:37

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,12:44)
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 03 2012,10:13)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,06:46)
 
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 03 2012,04:35)
Gary sweetie, you know that you would really go a long way if you just ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS regarding your uh.. ehm.. theory/programme/hypothesis/thing.

Sorry for insisting but the answers to the questions will give all of us here some very good insight into what it is you are going on about.

So here they are again, so you don't have to go searching for them.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between (answer yes/no):

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence
2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature
3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

If your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing is unable to detect difference then obviously your answer is "no" and you can add, if you want, an explanation.  But as I said before, a yes/no answer will suffice for now.

I'm sure you have made these distinctions in your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing or it would sign positive inference in anything and everything.

Ah one last thing if you wish to define terms such as "intelligent design" and "designed by nature" please feel free to do so. Just so you know if you use the above two as synonyms them you have a serious problem and we know where to start in addressing it.

Also it would also be really dandy if you could answer Wesley R. Elsberry and oldmanintheskydidntdoit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The best I can do is say that if the intelligence is not the source of what you qualified as "random" then answer to one is yes.

Number 2 and 3 are still as ambiguous.  End up reading:  

2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by an apple
3) a sequence designed by apple and a sequence that is apple designed

Without further information, it's nonsense to the theory.  The problem is in expecting scientific yes/no answers to questions that likely assume there is no intelligence in nature yet intelligence exists naturally, so right away there are paradoxes that only help show why ID arguments like this are inherently nonsensical to even ask.  And I'm honestly not trying to be evasive.  The logic of the theory requires unambiguous yes/no questions to answer, not generalizations from philosophy like "nature" and "designed by nature".

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......osophy) >

Philosophy is not science.  Therefore the second two are not even scientific questions, they are philosophical questions.  At their core, are questions that begin here, which do agree with theory:

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....S5IrO0I >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary, one of the main arguments for "ID" is the alleged presence and scientific measurability of "CSI", "FSCI", "dFSCI", and/or "dFSCI/O" in things in nature. Therefor, questions about alleged "CSI", "FSCI", "dFSCI", and/or "dFSCI/O" should be considered scientific by you and all other ID proponents.

So, can and will you measure the alleged CSI, FSCI, dFSCI, or dFSCI/O in a banana, a frog, and a rock and show your calculations?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them.  There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method.  For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces.  I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work.  Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found.  There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet.  I would not rule it out though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm, more irrelevant gibberish but no measurements/calculations. What a surprise. Not.

Oh well, don't feel too bad gary, none of the other IDiots can or will do it either.

Chalk up yet another day where "ID" has been shown to be vacuous.
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 04 2012,03:02

Did Dr. Leisola suggest that your stuff would be too long for a Bio-Complexity article or is this your impression?
Isn't it possible to summerize it?  Actually, Darwin did the same. Hewrote a short summary when he was informed that Wallace had come to the same conclusions independently.
In addition, 70 pages of a word document will reduce to much less when printed in a journal. Thus, you opus would be shorter than Albert Einstein's Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie is long (53 pages) which was still published in a journal (Annalen der Physik. 49, 1916, 769–822).
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Nov. 04 2012,03:56

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 03 2012,19:16)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 03 2012,11:02)
If this guy starts ending his comments with "I love it so" and asking about my frugivorous predilections, it would clarify things, I think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I actually was reminded a bit of JAD, the way he's focused on Jack Krebs for instance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He would find common ground with Doug Dobney/Socrates.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 04 2012,06:05

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 04 2012,03:02)
Did Dr. Leisola suggest that your stuff would be too long for a Bio-Complexity article or is this your impression?
Isn't it possible to summerize it?  Actually, Darwin did the same. Hewrote a short summary when he was informed that Wallace had come to the same conclusions independently.
In addition, 70 pages of a word document will reduce to much less when printed in a journal. Thus, you opus would be shorter than Albert Einstein's Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie is long (53 pages) which was still published in a journal (Annalen der Physik. 49, 1916, 769–822).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Matti said quote: "After looking your text I feel that it is more suitable as a book, since it attempts to cover so much ground."

The latest attempt to be within journal limits was the pdf with PNAS template:

< https://sites.google.com/site.......fID.pdf >

Considering the number of sections that need to be added (Speciation, Cambrian Explosion, 4 levels of intelligence, computer model instructions/documentation and in-color circuit schematics, etc.) I would be lucky to fit 1/3 of it.

Have to also consider the public policy of all the top journals.  The paper must be immediately rejected/deleted upon reading the title.  Writing it could very well be just another huge waste of time.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 04 2012,07:42

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,06:05)
Have to also consider the public policy of all the top journals.  The paper must be immediately rejected/deleted upon reading the title.  Writing it could very well be just another huge waste of time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are several ID journals desperate for content.

What's the hold up?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 The paper must be immediately rejected/deleted upon reading the title.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, indeed, so better not to even try?

It's funny but for all the claims of this happening over the years (papers being rejected for supporting ID not for their content) nobody has ever been able to name a single paper where this has happened.

Not a single one.

So you don't really have anything to worry about just yet in that regard.

So stop fucking pretending that's why you are not going to attempt to get published. That's what KF says you know. That he's not even going to try because it'll be rejected out of hand.

Don't try, it'll never happen. Try and at least you have a chance.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 04 2012,08:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My problem still boils down to this theory being a 1000 times more challenging than a research type paper, article or review.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Suggest you launch a S(ET)I of your own. You might find your peers, doesn't look like you'll find any here.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 04 2012,09:13

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,17:36)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 03 2012,17:02)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For your plan to work as a counter-tactic you here have to in court show that the Intelligence Design Lab and its documentation is from religious scripture instead of from Heiserman, Trehub, and other researchers and research that is linked to from the theory.  By the time the judge finishes reading it, they will be wondering how any sane person would even want to try stopping public schools from teaching science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's already happened. You lot lost. Get over it already!

If/when it comes to court again, guess what. You'll lose again! And again!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, and the Dover, PA ruling by Judge Jones was only against the actions of their school board (that read a statement against another theory in classrooms and had creationism books in school library) not against the "Theory of Intelligent Design".   As long as the teachers stick to the science that is in the theory it is legal to teach in any US public school district, including Dover's.  Some states even enacted bills to protect teachers from being harassed for (within bounds of science) teaching it.  Hence this makes sense: < Jimmy Eat World - My Best Theory >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is incorrect.

Jones was specifically asked, by BOTH sides to rule on the status of Intelligent Design.  He did so.  The fact that is was against ID is their problem, not anyone else's.

By the way, during that trial Michael Behe specifically denied that ID has any kind of mechanism.  In fact, IIRC, he stated that they weren't even looking for a mechanism.

So a previous comment from you is also wrong.  

Because Jones ruled that ID is creationism and creationism is based in religion, not science, then teachers do not have the right to teach it.

Again, and apparently this has been going on for 7 pages while I've been away...

WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 04 2012,09:15

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 04 2012,08:57)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My problem still boils down to this theory being a 1000 times more challenging than a research type paper, article or review.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Suggest you launch a S(ET)I of your own. You might find your peers, doesn't look like you'll find any here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And it's not a theory.  It's a notion and a sucky one at best.

A scientific theory is a well supported explanation for a phenomenon.

Well supported doesn't mean two lawyers writing blog articles about it all day.
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 04 2012,09:18

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,03:15)
BioComplexity is good for short presentations like this one for "The Lignin Enigma":
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I watched that right after The Rural Juror. It was good.
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 04 2012,09:24

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,20:05)
It sounds like you are saying I need to make the punch-lines show up better, and use more expression.  Is this sentence better?

Cows who know a moose when they see one, will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose, because they cannot see the difference either!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, what I'm saying is, you've got 40 pages of babble but no theory. You haven't presented a theory, Gary.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 04 2012,11:08

we are playing full-cover bingo right, just trying to make sure before i upset the game
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 04 2012,12:13

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 04 2012,01:02)
Isn't it possible to summerize it?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which is, of course, the opposite of winterize.

(Cue jokes about how it should be moth-balled, deep-sixed, flash frozen, &c...)
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 04 2012,12:21

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,07:15)
   
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 04 2012,08:57)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My problem still boils down to this theory being a 1000 times more challenging than a research type paper, article or review.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Suggest you launch a S(ET)I of your own. You might find your peers, doesn't look like you'll find any here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And it's not a theory.  It's a notion and a sucky one at best.

A scientific theory is a well supported explanation for a phenomenon.

Well supported doesn't mean two lawyers writing blog articles about it all day.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When you work at one job, or study one subject, or play one game/instrument/musical style for too long, there's a danger of filtering the whole world through your job/subject/play goggles. I'm pretty sure that's what's happend here. He's just trying to impose the purity of programming on the messiness of life.

Not working, Gary. You can't even write coherent sentences. Who's going to try to wade through 50+ pages of gibberish? It's not that your ideas are too advanced or complex. It's that you can't get to the fucking point, already.
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 04 2012,12:52

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 04 2012,13:21)
Not working, Gary. You can't even write coherent sentences. Who's going to try to wade through 50+ pages of gibberish? It's not that your ideas are too advanced or complex. It's that you can't get to the fucking point, already.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After I read his 40-something page version I went back and scanned the whole thing because I literally couldn't find an argument for ID.

If anybody reads it and finds an actual argument, please let me know, because I'm mystified. Gary doesn't seem to actually have an argument for ID, yet he believes he does, and believes it's compelling. WTF?
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 04 2012,12:57

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 04 2012,07:18)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,03:15)
BioComplexity is good for short presentations like this one for "The Lignin Enigma":
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I watched that right after The Rural Juror. It was good.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Especially in Japanese.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 04 2012,17:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If anybody reads it and finds an actual argument, please let me know, because I'm mystified. Gary doesn't seem to actually have an argument for ID, yet he believes he does, and believes it's compelling. WTF?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't ask me. From the bits that I managed to bring myself to glance at, I got the impression that he thinks that molecules have to "know" how to react with each other before they can do so.

Henry
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 04 2012,17:23

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 04 2012,12:52)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 04 2012,13:21)
Not working, Gary. You can't even write coherent sentences. Who's going to try to wade through 50+ pages of gibberish? It's not that your ideas are too advanced or complex. It's that you can't get to the fucking point, already.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After I read his 40-something page version I went back and scanned the whole thing because I literally couldn't find an argument for ID.

If anybody reads it and finds an actual argument, please let me know, because I'm mystified. Gary doesn't seem to actually have an argument for ID, yet he believes he does, and believes it's compelling. WTF?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If cognitive/physics/biological/chemical models and experiments are not allowed in your science then I need you to explain what you (and others here) were expecting a scientific theory to present as "an argument for ID".
Posted by: olegt on Nov. 04 2012,18:04

We are dealing here with a rare specimen.  Pure stuff.  Highest rating on the < crackpot scale >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 04 2012,18:14

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,18:23)
If cognitive/physics/biological/chemical models and experiments are not allowed in your science then I need you to explain what you (and others here) were expecting a scientific theory to present as "an argument for ID".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Obviously such models are allowed because that's where you got your details from. But your models don't feature an actual, you know, *designer* anywhere, Gary, or what the designer did, how it did it, when it was done, etc.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 04 2012,18:31

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 04 2012,18:14)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,18:23)
If cognitive/physics/biological/chemical models and experiments are not allowed in your science then I need you to explain what you (and others here) were expecting a scientific theory to present as "an argument for ID".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Obviously such models are allowed because that's where you got your details from. But your models don't feature an actual, you know, *designer* anywhere, Gary, or what the designer did, how it did it, when it was done, etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or in other words, your hypocritical scientific requirements demand that I pull Jesus from a hat.

Get into that, get into that.
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 04 2012,18:40

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,19:31)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your reading comprehension is weak. Neither I nor anyone else here requires any such thing. What we need from you is a model that includes a designer, and some details about how to distinguish designed crap from naturally occurring undesigned crap.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 04 2012,18:53

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 04 2012,18:40)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,19:31)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your reading comprehension is weak. Neither I nor anyone else here requires any such thing. What we need from you is a model that includes a designer, and some details about how to distinguish designed crap from naturally occurring undesigned crap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or in other words, the show must go on!

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....Med0s6E >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 04 2012,19:28

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 04 2012,19:40)
[quote=GaryGaulin,Nov. 04 2012,19:31][/quote]
Your reading comprehension is weak. Neither I nor anyone else here requires any such thing. What we need from you is a model that includes a designer, and some details about how to distinguish designed crap from naturally occurring undesigned crap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


or, you know, provide a description of a mechanism which makes useful predictions.

so far, you have provided flowcharts, "i dun wunned an award therefore ID", culture war Dover, culture war Kansas, irrelevant horsepifflery and several thousand words of text which are functionally indistinguishable from randomly generated bafflegab.

don't get me wrong buddy, i love laughing my tits off at this sort of thing.  it's just that if you are really serious about this bullshit* then you really suck at it

*yeah right i call Loki
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 04 2012,20:11

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 04 2012,19:28)
   
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 04 2012,19:40)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,19:31)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your reading comprehension is weak. Neither I nor anyone else here requires any such thing. What we need from you is a model that includes a designer, and some details about how to distinguish designed crap from naturally occurring undesigned crap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


or, you know, provide a description of a mechanism which makes useful predictions.

so far, you have provided flowcharts, "i dun wunned an award therefore ID", culture war Dover, culture war Kansas, irrelevant horsepifflery and several thousand words of text which are functionally indistinguishable from randomly generated bafflegab.

don't get me wrong buddy, i love laughing my tits off at this sort of thing.  it's just that if you are really serious about this bullshit* then you really suck at it

*yeah right i call Loki
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or in other non-words:



If this is not scientific enough for you then it's not my fault that through those who live for scientific discovery like this the theory is already all set to revolutionize science, while your fate is to laugh until you cry, then you die, then you die (of old age).  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The computer model also provides a precise, testable and scientifically useful operational definition for "intelligent cause" where each of the three emergent levels can be individually modeled, with a model predicted to be possible that generates an intelligent causation event, now goal of further research and challenge for all.

< http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1 >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hopefully you were already taught the concept where ones with entirely religious or political motives just die-off with time, while through those who only cared about the science the theory forever remains undefeated...  
Posted by: olegt on Nov. 04 2012,20:33

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,20:11)
If this is not scientific enough for you then it's not my fault that through those who live for scientific discovery like this the theory is already all set to revolutionize science, while your fate is to laugh until you cry, then you die, then you die (of old age).  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Word salad indeed.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 04 2012,21:29

Gary,

Why are you arguing with us about what science is?

Why don't you just provide the evidence that a designer exists?

Why don't you actually talk about the mistakes in your understanding of science?

Why don't you provide us with all the things that ID absolutely must be able to do (i.e. a testable prediction, evidence for the designer, a statement about who the designer is, and most importantly, how you tell designed stuff from non-designed stuff)?

Tell you what, let's do a simple little test.  I'll provide two gene sequences, one of which we know was designed, because a human designed it.  The other is a sequence created from random numbers.  Then you can use your notions (whatever they are) to tell us which is designed and which is not designed.

Any interest in that?
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 04 2012,21:52

I just want to see a single logical argument from this guy.

Here's a simple argument, Gary.

Proposition1: All horses weigh less than 17 tons.
Proposition2: Rafalca is a horse.
Conclusion: Therefore Rafalca weighs less than 17 tons.

Give us some propositions, Gary, how ever many you want, that logically concludes: Therefore (x natural thing) was designed. A coherent, logical argument. Not this endless babble you've given us so far. You've literally been the worst advocate for ID that we've ever seen.
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 04 2012,21:56

Gary, did you ever send your stuff to other IDists beside Matti Leisola? If so how did Behe, Dembski, and the guys from the Biologic Institute, the Evolutionary Informatics Lab and the Discovery Institute react? IIRC, UD regulars run a private discussion forum. If you discussed your stuff there or if you had other opportunities to discuss it with JohnnyB, JowG or KairosFocus what did they say?
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 04 2012,22:29

Okay, GG, you invented a... um... let's be polite and call it a unique way of modelling life.

As the giant kid in "Food of the Gods" said, "What's it all for?"

Seriously, dude. Now you've got this giant flowchart, what are you going to do with it?

Besides wallpaper your bedroom (alternating with your big-whoop, programmer-of-the-minute badge), I mean.

As it stands, it's about as useful as the Greek tragedy of Aether and Phlogiston.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 04 2012,22:38

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)
Gary,

Why are you arguing with us about what science is?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So that lurkers know why you have none to offer.

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)
Why don't you just provide the evidence that a designer exists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Already did.  

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)
Why don't you actually talk about the mistakes in your understanding of science?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Such as?

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)
Why don't you provide us with all the things that ID absolutely must be able to do (i.e. a testable prediction, evidence for the designer, a statement about who the designer is, and most importantly, how you tell designed stuff from non-designed stuff)?

Tell you what, let's do a simple little test.  I'll provide two gene sequences, one of which we know was designed, because I a human designed it.  The other is a sequence created from random numbers.  Then you can use your notions (whatever they are) to tell us which is designed and which is not designed.

Any interest in that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I no interest at all, in playing the usual dizzying head-games.  But since you want to play, then here are two strings.  One was taken from a Fasta file for an actual organism (you would say product of unintelligent random mutation) and the other I myself designed (not a product of unintelligent random mutation):

1) GGATGAGA

2) AAAAAAAAAA

Which of the two is a product of what you call "random mutation" and which is not (because I myself just made it up and whatever)?
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 04 2012,23:20

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 04 2012,21:56)
Gary, did you ever send your stuff to other IDists beside Matti Leisola? If so how did Behe, Dembski, and the guys from the Biologic Institute, the Evolutionary Informatics Lab and the Discovery Institute react? IIRC, UD regulars run a private discussion forum. If you discussed your stuff there or if you had other opportunities to discuss it with JohnnyB, JowG or KairosFocus what did they say?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I never posted anything at UD.  But I correspond with < Caroline Crocker > and have been keeping the Discovery Institute's communication director Robert Crowther informed of major developments so that they are not blindsided by the theory, and know what to prepare for.  Reaction can be summed up as:  From what I had that of course still needed work there were no complaints from anyone in the ID camp.
Posted by: Cubist on Nov. 04 2012,23:40

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,22:38)

   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)
Tell you what, let's do a simple little test.  I'll provide two gene sequences, one of which we know was designed, because I a human designed it.  The other is a sequence created from random numbers.  Then you can use your notions (whatever they are) to tell us which is designed and which is not designed.

Any interest in that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I no interest at all, in playing the usual dizzying head-games.  But since you want to play, then here are two strings.  One was taken from a Fasta file for an actual organism (you would say product of unintelligent random mutation) and the other I myself designed (not a product of unintelligent random mutation):

1) GGATGAGA

2) AAAAAAAAAA

Which of the two is a product of what you call "random mutation" and which is not (because I myself just made it up and whatever)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Analogy: When people ask "how do you distinguish between a Designed sequence and an un-Designed sequence", they're asking for a general solution to the three-body problem. When you reply can't you tell the difference between GGATGAGA and AAAAAAAAAA, you're just providing a Lagrange point—a single, solitary, specific answer, as opposed to the general solution that's being asked for.
Let's see if Laddie GaGa gets the point of the above paragraph…
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 05 2012,00:24

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 04 2012,22:29)
Okay, GG, you invented a... um... let's be polite and call it a unique way of modelling life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Excellent!  Now you're better seeing the source of the < soothing light at the end of your tunnel. >

   
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 04 2012,22:29)
As the giant kid in "Food of the Gods" said, "What's it all for?"

Seriously, dude. Now you've got this giant flowchart, what are you going to do with it?

Besides wallpaper your bedroom (alternating with your big-whoop, programmer-of-the-minute badge), I mean.

As it stands, it's about as useful as the Greek tragedy of Aether and Phlogiston.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The flowchart(s) are now onboard the theory, to help give it extra momentum.  

But pssst.  All of your Darwinian Evolutionary Algorithms are about to get squished by progress.  And I think William Dembski et al are going to love seeing Avida get bashed to pieces too, not that it was not once (in the past) the state of the art for modelling life.
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 05 2012,00:53

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)
Why don't you provide us with all the things that ID absolutely must be able to do (i.e. a testable prediction, evidence for the designer, a statement about who the designer is, and most importantly, how you tell designed stuff from non-designed stuff)?

Tell you what, let's do a simple little test.  I'll provide two gene sequences, one of which we know was designed, because a human designed it.  The other is a sequence created from random numbers.  Then you can use your notions (whatever they are) to tell us which is designed and which is not designed.

Any interest in that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tried that, got the following crytpic message back.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them.  There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method.  For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces.  I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work.  Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found.  There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet.  I would not rule it out though."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



...our lab is currently trying to find design in the statement above, but at the moment we are pretty sure there isn't any.
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 05 2012,01:07

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,23:20)
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 04 2012,21:56)
Gary, did you ever send your stuff to other IDists beside Matti Leisola? If so how did Behe, Dembski, and the guys from the Biologic Institute, the Evolutionary Informatics Lab and the Discovery Institute react? IIRC, UD regulars run a private discussion forum. If you discussed your stuff there or if you had other opportunities to discuss it with JohnnyB, JowG or KairosFocus what did they say?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I never posted anything at UD.  But I correspond with < Caroline Crocker > and have been keeping the Discovery Institute's communication director Robert Crowther informed of major developments so that they are not blindsided by the theory, and know what to prepare for.  Reaction can be summed up as:  From what I had that of course still needed work there were no complaints from anyone in the ID camp.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, no complaints surely is not the same as being endorsed and supported.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 05 2012,01:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All of your Darwinian Evolutionary Algorithms are about to get squished by progress.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah, yes. "Evolution is on its last legs."  Classic.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 05 2012,01:30

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 05 2012,01:21)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All of your Darwinian Evolutionary Algorithms are about to get squished by progress.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah, yes. "Evolution is on its last legs."  Classic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The operative phrase is < "Evolutionary Algorithms." >

Your attention to detail is fast asleep.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 05 2012,02:23

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 05 2012,00:53)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)
Why don't you provide us with all the things that ID absolutely must be able to do (i.e. a testable prediction, evidence for the designer, a statement about who the designer is, and most importantly, how you tell designed stuff from non-designed stuff)?

Tell you what, let's do a simple little test.  I'll provide two gene sequences, one of which we know was designed, because a human designed it.  The other is a sequence created from random numbers.  Then you can use your notions (whatever they are) to tell us which is designed and which is not designed.

Any interest in that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tried that, got the following crytpic message back.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them.  There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method.  For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces.  I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work.  Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found.  There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet.  I would not rule it out though."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



...our lab is currently trying to find design in the statement above, but at the moment we are pretty sure there isn't any.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll bet you said roughly the same thing about the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design.  Only thing needed to make a big mistake like that, is to rely on mainstream science media for all your news of what's going on in science.

The paragraph you are having trouble with is simply a pragmatic way saying that I'm not sure how CSI and such fits into this theory.  But there's a good hint where that could very well be, staring right back at us here:

 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,22:38)
....here are two strings.  One was taken from a Fasta file for an actual organism (you would say product of unintelligent random mutation) and the other I myself designed (not a product of unintelligent random mutation):

1) GGATGAGA

2) AAAAAAAAAA

Which of the two is a product of what you call "random mutation" and which is not (because I myself just made it up and whatever)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I purposely made it very simple to spot which one has almost no chance at all of being the product of randomness.  I'm sure (hint, hint)< Guenter Albrecht-Buehler > would easily figure it out.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 05 2012,03:03

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 04 2012,23:40)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,22:38)

   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)
Tell you what, let's do a simple little test.  I'll provide two gene sequences, one of which we know was designed, because I a human designed it.  The other is a sequence created from random numbers.  Then you can use your notions (whatever they are) to tell us which is designed and which is not designed.

Any interest in that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I no interest at all, in playing the usual dizzying head-games.  But since you want to play, then here are two strings.  One was taken from a Fasta file for an actual organism (you would say product of unintelligent random mutation) and the other I myself designed (not a product of unintelligent random mutation):

1) GGATGAGA

2) AAAAAAAAAA

Which of the two is a product of what you call "random mutation" and which is not (because I myself just made it up and whatever)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Analogy: When people ask "how do you distinguish between a Designed sequence and an un-Designed sequence", they're asking for a general solution to the three-body problem. When you reply can't you tell the difference between GGATGAGA and AAAAAAAAAA, you're just providing a Lagrange point—a single, solitary, specific answer, as opposed to the general solution that's being asked for.
Let's see if Laddie GaGa gets the point of the above paragraph…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your paragraph indicates that you way overcomplicated a simple problem that is easily solved by high school level math, or simple common sense.
Posted by: Woodbine on Nov. 05 2012,03:04

All your algorithm are belong to us.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 05 2012,03:39

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 05 2012,01:07)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,23:20)
 
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 04 2012,21:56)
Gary, did you ever send your stuff to other IDists beside Matti Leisola? If so how did Behe, Dembski, and the guys from the Biologic Institute, the Evolutionary Informatics Lab and the Discovery Institute react? IIRC, UD regulars run a private discussion forum. If you discussed your stuff there or if you had other opportunities to discuss it with JohnnyB, JowG or KairosFocus what did they say?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I never posted anything at UD.  But I correspond with < Caroline Crocker > and have been keeping the Discovery Institute's communication director Robert Crowther informed of major developments so that they are not blindsided by the theory, and know what to prepare for.  Reaction can be summed up as:  From what I had that of course still needed work there were no complaints from anyone in the ID camp.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, no complaints surely is not the same as being endorsed and supported.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Due to circumstances that are beyond my ability to change it's still best that it is not endorsed and supported by the Discovery Institute and others who are automatically dismissed as crackpots anyway.  Like any large scientific project there are also dueling egos, and in a way I'm just one more.  Even the DI has to be careful not to start a feud between us, which they get stuck in the middle of.    It's best that I develop my own niche that others in the movement have little problem adapting to.
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 05 2012,04:25

No need GG, you're in a niche of your own.
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 05 2012,04:26

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,02:23)
I purposely made it very simple to spot which one has almost no chance at all of being the product of randomness.  I'm sure (hint, hint)< Guenter Albrecht-Buehler > would easily figure it out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you in contact with Dr. Buehler-Albrecht? Doesn't he assume evolution created what he thinks is cell intelligence?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 05 2012,04:34

Talk is cheap.

Gary, do something.

E.G. provide a novel result.

If you have a simulation of intelligence then why don't you use it to solve a problem.

The TSP comes to mind. Go for it!

Or anything really.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 05 2012,04:49

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 05 2012,03:04)
All your algorithm are belong to us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, science belongs to everyone.

But since this theory was nurtured by Kansas educators, Dover are residents, news/entertainment media, artists, scientists and more, due credit must be given or else all hell will soon enough break loose around those who enabled that to happen.  If it's impossible to reference a place like Planet Source Code then we the taxpayers who support big-science will have little problem shutting down the intellectual snobbery via the < NSF-OIG > and such.

You are free to experiment with the theory too.  Only have to remember to give credit were due and you're all set for the future.  And I genuinely wish you luck, especially since your grammar is as good as mine when I get overtired.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 05 2012,05:08

Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 05 2012,04:25)
No need GG, you're in a niche of your own.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's true.  All indications are that ones in the ID movement who studied it know it's a good thing.  But the theory covers so much science and requires some programming skills resulting in a steep learning curve, for some.

I can also say that it's no different from my attitude towards science journals with a public policy to discriminate against the theory that they are now powerless against.  What anyone even the DI thinks about it, is irrelevant.  But I don't want to be a creep about it and would rather all learn to love the change it's bringing, to more than just science.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 05 2012,05:34

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 05 2012,04:26)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,02:23)
I purposely made it very simple to spot which one has almost no chance at all of being the product of randomness.  I'm sure (hint, hint)< Guenter Albrecht-Buehler > would easily figure it out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you in contact with Dr. Buehler-Albrecht? Doesn't he assume evolution created what he thinks is cell intelligence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, on occasion I email them.  I now need to let them know about the new chromosome banding program they helped inspire.  

Guenter used to have a disclaimer on the website to let everyone know they are NOT a fan of the Discovery Institute, or have a problem with evolutionary theory.  Their need for that was the result of their work making them a celebrity in the ID camp, which resulted in becoming a target for even NCSE based ridicule:

< http://www.iscid.org/guenter....ler.php >

My advice was to not alienate all who looked up to them this way, for its educational value, because things would soon enough turn around.  The disclaimer is now long gone...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 05 2012,05:49

Wiki:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[2] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative.[3] Scientific theories are also distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[4]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are free to experiment with the theory too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't have a theory Gary, you have an idea.

Please tell me in what way your idea is a well-confirmed type of explanation?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 05 2012,05:51

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,05:08)
But the theory covers so much science and requires some programming skills resulting in a steep learning curve, for some.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What does your theory explain? Be specific?

Give an example of a thing that your theory explains and also explain how it's currently explained.

Then detail why your explanation is superior.

I keep asking this. You keep ignoring it.

I don't need to think very hard to work out why that might be.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 05 2012,06:29

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2012,04:34)
Talk is cheap.

Gary, do something.

E.G. provide a novel result.

If you have a simulation of intelligence then why don't you use it to solve a problem.

The TSP comes to mind. Go for it!

Or anything really.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The most novel and stunning application I know of is to give it speech then as long as consciousness in not required (or somehow posses it) I expect it would go out of it's mind with panic where told they are being made gone (killed).  I would not try that with a robot though, it could get very dangerous.  In virtual reality it might just be a little traumatic to the experimenter, especially when they actually do have to turn off the program, which then ends their life, because of the experiment being over.

EA's and GA's keep trying random solutions to solve a given problem and even though they might solve it that is not a test of how well it models reality.  Only seems like it because you were conditioned to think that way.  In reality though, the best sign of intelligence/reality is it tells you to go solve your own damn problem, because they're busy.  Or gets your drink from the fridge then dumps it on your head while calling you a lazy slob.

Real intelligence is often not very cooperative.  And when you take away it's individuality you get a virtually unintelligent zombie.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 05 2012,06:45

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2012,05:51)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,05:08)
But the theory covers so much science and requires some programming skills resulting in a steep learning curve, for some.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What does your theory explain? Be specific?

Give an example of a thing that your theory explains and also explain how it's currently explained.

Then detail why your explanation is superior.

I keep asking this. You keep ignoring it.

I don't need to think very hard to work out why that might be.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The theory is for modeling reality.  Current EA's and GA's are baby-toys in comparison.  Best way to prove that, is for you to try it for yourself.
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 05 2012,07:52

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,13:08)
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 05 2012,04:25)
No need GG, you're in a niche of your own.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's true.  All indications are that ones in the ID movement who studied it know it's a good thing.  But the theory covers so much science and requires some programming skills resulting in a steep learning curve, for some.

I can also say that it's no different from my attitude towards science journals with a public policy to discriminate against the theory that they are now powerless against.  What anyone even the DI thinks about it, is irrelevant.  But I don't want to be a creep about it and would rather all learn to love the change it's bringing, to more than just science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sigh....No GG you're not listening, you must have a tin ear.

Let me make it a little simpler.

You are on your own, you sad cunt.
Posted by: olegt on Nov. 05 2012,08:07

The sad truth, Gary, is that you simply can't express yourself. Your writing is so bad that it reminds me of < Vogon poetry >.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2012,08:22

You are very confusing.

So are you claiming that the intelligent cause is an artificial intelligence or are you just using that as an example for something?

I would really, really hate to read your code. I bet it's a million lines of spaghetti code that does nothing more than print "Hello World".

Let me ask, because I really do want to have this conversation, will you describe the steps in the scientific method as you understand them?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 05 2012,08:40

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,06:45)
The theory is for modeling reality.  Current EA's and GA's are baby-toys in comparison.  Best way to prove that, is for you to try it for yourself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, it's for you to prove that such an investment of time would be worthwhile. All you have to do is demonstrate what it is that you are claiming. You can do that right?

If your "theory" makes current GAs look like toys then please show how it solves the TSP.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......problem >

We can compare it's performance to a standard GA.

That would be the best way for you to prove that.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 05 2012,08:42

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,06:29)
In reality though, the best sign of intelligence/reality is it tells you to go solve your own damn problem, because they're busy.  Or gets your drink from the fridge then dumps it on your head while calling you a lazy slob.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So that would be a no then. No, you can't show how your theory provides improved results over what you are claiming it replaces.

Fool.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 05 2012,08:48


Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 05 2012,10:38

Quote (olegt @ Nov. 05 2012,09:07)
The sad truth, Gary, is that you simply can't express yourself. Your writing is so bad that it reminds me of < Vogon poetry >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Vogon poetry is cogent. Gary is not.
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 05 2012,10:39

Anywho, it's pretty clear that Gary's got nothing. I'm out.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 05 2012,11:08

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,06:29)
The most novel and stunning application I know of is to give it speech then as long as consciousness in not required (or somehow posses it) I expect it would go out of it's mind with panic where told they are being made gone (killed).  I would not try that with a robot though, it could get very dangerous.  In virtual reality it might just be a little traumatic to the experimenter, especially when they actually do have to turn off the program, which then ends their life, because of the experiment being over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what you seem to be saying, Gary, is that you could use your system to solve a problem by creating an intelligence and getting it to solve the problem but you don't want to do that as it would be unfair to the intelligence?

Or traumatic to the experimenter because they would be "killing" the intelligence once the experiment ends?

There is a very simple answer to this conundrum Gary.

Create the intelligence and ask it for it's opinion!!

Yeah, you've got nothing and you know it. You won't do the single thing you are claiming you can do yet will continue to claim that you can do it.

There is a reason they are called IDiots you know Gary.


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 05 2012,11:14

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 05 2012,11:39)
Anywho, it's pretty clear that Gary's got nothing. I'm out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


awww man we just opened the box of glitter text too

next come lolcats
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 05 2012,11:19

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,17:23)
If cognitive/physics/biological/chemical models and experiments are not allowed in your science then I need you to explain what you (and others here) were expecting a scientific theory to present as "an argument for ID".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Models are fine, Gary, if they support a theory or an hypothesis. Thus far however, you have not presented a theory or an hypothesis. Thus, your code is worthless.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 05 2012,11:19

IDCer:  Buy My Book Read My Source Code!  

Bartender: erm why the hell would i want to do that?

IDCer:  The theory is for modeling reality.  Current EA's and GA's are baby-toys in comparison.  Best way to prove that, is for you to try it for yourself.

Bartender:  OK well why the hell would I want do that?

IDCer:   All indications are that ones in the ID movement who studied it know it's a good thing.  But the theory covers so much science and requires some programming skills resulting in a steep learning curve, for some.

Bartender:  Yeah you said that same shit several times already.  But who cares?  WHAT DOES IT DO?

IDCer:  Well, I can also say that it's no different from my attitude towards science journals with a public policy to discriminate against the theory that they are now powerless against.

Bartender:  That's it pal you're cut off and if you try to dance with any of these women you are going to be in for a surprise
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 05 2012,11:25

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,20:11)
...like this the theory is already all set to revolutionize science,...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What theory Gary? You haven't presented one yet. All you keep babbling about is that this supposed "intelligent design" thing is a theory, but you haven't...you know...actually demonstrated that by...you know...stating what the theory is. Here's a hint: a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." So what has this "theory of intelligent design" repeatedly confirmed? What are your "body of facts"? What observations and experiments have you done?

What is your theory Gary?
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 05 2012,12:20

"Your story has become tiresome."

-1


Posted by: sparc on Nov. 05 2012,13:44

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,03:39)
 
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 05 2012,01:07)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,23:20)
   
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 04 2012,21:56)
Gary, did you ever send your stuff to other IDists beside Matti Leisola? If so how did Behe, Dembski, and the guys from the Biologic Institute, the Evolutionary Informatics Lab and the Discovery Institute react? IIRC, UD regulars run a private discussion forum. If you discussed your stuff there or if you had other opportunities to discuss it with JohnnyB, JowG or KairosFocus what did they say?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I never posted anything at UD.  But I correspond with < Caroline Crocker > and have been keeping the Discovery Institute's communication director Robert Crowther informed of major developments so that they are not blindsided by the theory, and know what to prepare for.  Reaction can be summed up as:  From what I had that of course still needed work there were no complaints from anyone in the ID camp.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, no complaints surely is not the same as being endorsed and supported.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Due to circumstances that are beyond my ability to change it's still best that it is not endorsed and supported by the Discovery Institute and others who are automatically dismissed as crackpots anyway.  Like any large scientific project there are also dueling egos, and in a way I'm just one more.  Even the DI has to be careful not to start a feud between us, which they get stuck in the middle of.    It's best that I develop my own niche that others in the movement have little problem adapting to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thus, you isolate yourself even from potential allies. And those ID proponents you have contacted are surely not those who are known for contributions to the fields that would be relevant for your claims. But what do you expect here?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 05 2012,14:49

The sad thing is Gary that I'd be fascinated if I believed you had something.

For example, I've been following this:

< http://www.kickstarter.com/project....t....ts >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't promise actual physical aliens from another planet, but I can offer you real 'alien' life forms who can live in a virtual world on your computer. And I do mean real. I'm not talking about a computer game designed to simulate lifelike behavior; I mean genuine artificial life. I mean virtual creatures constructed from complex networks of virtual brain cells and biochemical reactions and genes. They'll learn things for themselves and have their own thoughts. I don't program them to behave in a certain way - they make their own decisions. If they get sick it will be because something has disturbed the delicate balance of their biochemistry, and remedies must be discovered that can rebalance it. If they evolve new traits or suffer from unknown hereditary diseases it'll be because nature has taken its course, not because it's part of the plot. If you conclude that they're conscious, thinking, feeling beings then it won't be because I've somehow fooled you. I'm not here to fool you; I'm here to celebrate the beauty and complexity of life with you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He (Steve Grand) has a track record.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......e_Grand >

I've got his book!

< http://www.amazon.co.uk/Growing....7607332 >

It's a good read.

Whatever he ultimately comes up with I'm quite sure will be worth a look.

So, keep up the smokescreen of "dueling egos" and "traumatic to the experimenter" if you like as an excuse not to produce anything. It's vastly amusing!

Steve's project raised $56,818 because people believed in either him or his explanation of what he wanted to do. They thought it was worth finding out what he could do.

Think about that.
Posted by: George on Nov. 05 2012,16:49

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 05 2012,10:38)
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 05 2012,09:07)
The sad truth, Gary, is that you simply can't express yourself. Your writing is so bad that it reminds me of < Vogon poetry >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Vogon poetry is cogent. Gary is not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More like Neal Casady's stream of consciousness rambling at a Ken Kesey Acid Test.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 05 2012,17:10

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2012,14:49)
The sad thing is Gary that I'd be fascinated if I believed you had something.

For example, I've been following this:

< http://www.kickstarter.com/project....t....ts >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't promise actual physical aliens from another planet, but I can offer you real 'alien' life forms who can live in a virtual world on your computer. And I do mean real. I'm not talking about a computer game designed to simulate lifelike behavior; I mean genuine artificial life. I mean virtual creatures constructed from complex networks of virtual brain cells and biochemical reactions and genes. They'll learn things for themselves and have their own thoughts. I don't program them to behave in a certain way - they make their own decisions. If they get sick it will be because something has disturbed the delicate balance of their biochemistry, and remedies must be discovered that can rebalance it. If they evolve new traits or suffer from unknown hereditary diseases it'll be because nature has taken its course, not because it's part of the plot. If you conclude that they're conscious, thinking, feeling beings then it won't be because I've somehow fooled you. I'm not here to fool you; I'm here to celebrate the beauty and complexity of life with you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He (Steve Grand) has a track record.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......e_Grand >

I've got his book!

< http://www.amazon.co.uk/Growing....7607332 >

It's a good read.

Whatever he ultimately comes up with I'm quite sure will be worth a look.

So, keep up the smokescreen of "dueling egos" and "traumatic to the experimenter" if you like as an excuse not to produce anything. It's vastly amusing!

Steve's project raised $56,818 because people believed in either him or his explanation of what he wanted to do. They thought it was worth finding out what he could do.

Think about that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The model you are comparing with is not for modeling "intelligent cause".  Nor is it origin of life theory that also describes chemistry experiments/models teachers need for class.  

Your intellectual laziness very much shows.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 05 2012,17:13

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 05 2012,13:44)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,03:39)
 
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 05 2012,01:07)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,23:20)
     
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 04 2012,21:56)
Gary, did you ever send your stuff to other IDists beside Matti Leisola? If so how did Behe, Dembski, and the guys from the Biologic Institute, the Evolutionary Informatics Lab and the Discovery Institute react? IIRC, UD regulars run a private discussion forum. If you discussed your stuff there or if you had other opportunities to discuss it with JohnnyB, JowG or KairosFocus what did they say?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I never posted anything at UD.  But I correspond with < Caroline Crocker > and have been keeping the Discovery Institute's communication director Robert Crowther informed of major developments so that they are not blindsided by the theory, and know what to prepare for.  Reaction can be summed up as:  From what I had that of course still needed work there were no complaints from anyone in the ID camp.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, no complaints surely is not the same as being endorsed and supported.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Due to circumstances that are beyond my ability to change it's still best that it is not endorsed and supported by the Discovery Institute and others who are automatically dismissed as crackpots anyway.  Like any large scientific project there are also dueling egos, and in a way I'm just one more.  Even the DI has to be careful not to start a feud between us, which they get stuck in the middle of.    It's best that I develop my own niche that others in the movement have little problem adapting to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thus, you isolate yourself even from potential allies. And those ID proponents you have contacted are surely not those who are known for contributions to the fields that would be relevant for your claims. But what do you expect here?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I expect what you gave me, another situation where I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 05 2012,17:24

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 05 2012,11:25)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,20:11)
...like this the theory is already all set to revolutionize science,...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What theory Gary? You haven't presented one yet. All you keep babbling about is that this supposed "intelligent design" thing is a theory, but you haven't...you know...actually demonstrated that by...you know...stating what the theory is. Here's a hint: a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." So what has this "theory of intelligent design" repeatedly confirmed? What are your "body of facts"? What observations and experiments have you done?

What is your theory Gary?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where's a sample of your work?  Show me one hypothesis or theory (such as a paper describing how a metabolic system works that is based on protein crystallization data that you produced) that you published anywhere.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 05 2012,17:34

< apropos of nothing, I'm sure >
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 05 2012,18:06

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,15:24)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 05 2012,11:25)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,20:11)
...like this the theory is already all set to revolutionize science,...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What theory Gary? You haven't presented one yet. All you keep babbling about is that this supposed "intelligent design" thing is a theory, but you haven't...you know...actually demonstrated that by...you know...stating what the theory is. Here's a hint: a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." So what has this "theory of intelligent design" repeatedly confirmed? What are your "body of facts"? What observations and experiments have you done?

What is your theory Gary?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where's a sample of your work?  Show me one hypothesis or theory (such as a paper describing how a metabolic system works that is based on protein crystallization data that you produced) that you published anywhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not the way it works.  You're the one claiming to have revolutionised science.  You're the one with the burden of proof.

As this is such a comprehensive theory (all the way from atoms to noses), it should be easy to make a start on presenting evidence for your claim - if it's this big, you must have done a lot of tests to show that it's better than mainstream science.  (Otherwise you'd just look silly, and I'm sure you don't want to look silly.)  Let's see 'em.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 05 2012,18:20

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2012,18:06)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,15:24)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 05 2012,11:25)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,20:11)
...like this the theory is already all set to revolutionize science,...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What theory Gary? You haven't presented one yet. All you keep babbling about is that this supposed "intelligent design" thing is a theory, but you haven't...you know...actually demonstrated that by...you know...stating what the theory is. Here's a hint: a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." So what has this "theory of intelligent design" repeatedly confirmed? What are your "body of facts"? What observations and experiments have you done?

What is your theory Gary?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where's a sample of your work?  Show me one hypothesis or theory (such as a paper describing how a metabolic system works that is based on protein crystallization data that you produced) that you published anywhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not the way it works.  You're the one claiming to have revolutionised science.  You're the one with the burden of proof.

As this is such a comprehensive theory (all the way from atoms to noses), it should be easy to make a start on presenting evidence for your claim - if it's this big, you must have done a lot of tests to show that it's better than mainstream science.  (Otherwise you'd just look silly, and I'm sure you don't want to look silly.)  Let's see 'em.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is now time for those who claim to better know what the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design is (in scientific context) describing to prove that they have a better explanation for "intelligent cause".
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 05 2012,18:23

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,16:20)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2012,18:06)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,15:24)
 
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 05 2012,11:25)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,20:11)
...like this the theory is already all set to revolutionize science,...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What theory Gary? You haven't presented one yet. All you keep babbling about is that this supposed "intelligent design" thing is a theory, but you haven't...you know...actually demonstrated that by...you know...stating what the theory is. Here's a hint: a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." So what has this "theory of intelligent design" repeatedly confirmed? What are your "body of facts"? What observations and experiments have you done?

What is your theory Gary?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where's a sample of your work?  Show me one hypothesis or theory (such as a paper describing how a metabolic system works that is based on protein crystallization data that you produced) that you published anywhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not the way it works.  You're the one claiming to have revolutionised science.  You're the one with the burden of proof.

As this is such a comprehensive theory (all the way from atoms to noses), it should be easy to make a start on presenting evidence for your claim - if it's this big, you must have done a lot of tests to show that it's better than mainstream science.  (Otherwise you'd just look silly, and I'm sure you don't want to look silly.)  Let's see 'em.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is now time for those who claim to better know what the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design is (in scientific context) describing to prove that they have a better explanation for "intelligent cause".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No it isn't.  

You're the one who came in here making claims.  Back them up.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 05 2012,18:36

My new computer/software was able to save a pdf version of the theory!

< https://sites.google.com/site....ign.pdf >

There should now be no excuses at all for not having studying it, before commenting.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 05 2012,18:42

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,18:36)
My new computer/software was able to save a pdf version of the theory!

< https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf >

There should now be no excuses at all for not having studying it, before commenting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just curious - why do you think creating a .pdf version of the same idiotic bullshit you've already posted here will somehow magically make it stop being idiotic bullshit?
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 05 2012,18:45

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,16:36)
My new computer/software was able to save a pdf version of the theory!

< https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf >

There should now be no excuses at all for not having studying it, before commenting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why is it worth studying?  You've given us no reason to do so.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 05 2012,19:03

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2012,18:45)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,16:36)
My new computer/software was able to save a pdf version of the theory!

< https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf >

There should now be no excuses at all for not having studying it, before commenting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why is it worth studying?  You've given us no reason to do so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


An objective scientist would know better than that.  

Best reason for studying before commenting, is to not make an ass out of themselves by not even knowing what they're talking about.
Posted by: olegt on Nov. 05 2012,19:24

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,18:36)
My new computer/software was able to save a pdf version of the theory!

< https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf >

There should now be no excuses at all for not having studying it, before commenting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You got it backwards, pal. I don't need an excuse for not studying your crap. I need motivation to study it. So far your incoherent babbling seems like a poor motivator.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 05 2012,19:37

Quote (olegt @ Nov. 05 2012,19:24)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,18:36)
My new computer/software was able to save a pdf version of the theory!

< https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf >

There should now be no excuses at all for not having studying it, before commenting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You got it backwards, pal. I don't need an excuse for not studying your crap. I need motivation to study it. So far your incoherent babbling seems like a poor motivator.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you are that uninterested in this area science then you should not have commented at all.  Only made an ass out of yourself by pretending to know what you're talking about, when you didn't even read it.  That's as pompous as it gets, and I'm not here to make excuses for you..
Posted by: olegt on Nov. 05 2012,20:33

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,19:37)
If you are that uninterested in this area science then you should not have commented at all.  Only made an ass out of yourself by pretending to know what you're talking about, when you didn't even read it.  That's as pompous as it gets, and I'm not here to make excuses for you..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, I don't pretend to know what we're talking about. It's impossible to figure that out from your incoherent ramblings.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 05 2012,20:37

Helping you, Gary!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Under the Internet Standard of Proof, the following things are considered proof:
Opinion
Anecdotal evidence
Pudding
The Holocaust (see Godwin's Law)
9/11
Non-linear time
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I am voting for time cube
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 05 2012,20:39

Quote (olegt @ Nov. 05 2012,20:24)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,18:36)
My new computer/software was able to save a pdf version of the theory!

< https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf >

There should now be no excuses at all for not having studying it, before commenting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You got it backwards, pal. I don't need an excuse for not studying your crap. I need motivation to study it. So far your incoherent babbling seems like a poor motivator.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2012,20:39

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,19:37)
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 05 2012,19:24)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,18:36)
My new computer/software was able to save a pdf version of the theory!

< https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf >

There should now be no excuses at all for not having studying it, before commenting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You got it backwards, pal. I don't need an excuse for not studying your crap. I need motivation to study it. So far your incoherent babbling seems like a poor motivator.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you are that uninterested in this area science then you should not have commented at all.  Only made an ass out of yourself by pretending to know what you're talking about, when you didn't even read it.  That's as pompous as it gets, and I'm not here to make excuses for you..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I read the first couple of pages.  You are not even wrong on so many levels it's sad.  You would have to study for years to reach the level of merely wrong.

Let's look:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Several decades of following scientific evidence wherever it leads has led to this high school simple yet powerful cognitive emergence theory that...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Apparently "several decades" means "I read wikipedia, but didn't understand it".  You have obviously NOT read the actual science involved, since you don't understand even the most basic concept of "what is a theory".



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The phrase "natural selection" is a subjective generalization that is impossible to precisely quantify.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ummm... no.  The Hardy-Weinberg principle and equations specifically show how random mating, without disturbing influences will result in an equilibrium of allele and genotype frequencies.  By studying actual allele and genotype frequencies, we can know when a population is out of balance.

It the population is in equilibrium (for example, the sickle cell trait in African populations of humans) and a change occurs (say all the mosquitoes being wiped out), then we can actually show how the allele frequency changes over time due to that changed environment.  Natural selection weeding out the less robust traits (with the caveat that humans can overcome selection at this level with medical science).

Heck, even a brief reading of the "natural selection" page on Wikipedia should be enough to show you that this statement is wrong.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This theory instead requires specific terminology from cognitive science to be able to explain the tenacious self-learning mechanisms of intelligent living things which more specifically "learn" (not select/selected) and can take a "guess” (not mutate) and over time physically “develop” (not evolve).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, what you're saying here is that instead of evolution via mutation and natural selection, that every single organism on the planet CHOOSE to change in some way.

Yeah, I don't think we need to go farther.  It really is a mess.  It's poorly constructed.  Usually a Table of Contents comes first, not on page 5 and in general, pages are numbered (usually in ascending order from the first page).  You may be a computer programmer, but you absolutely suck at operating a computer.  I don't know what software you are using (Word Perfect 3 maybe?), but they all have auto page numbering systems.

You might also want to remove the "Ads by Google" parts for the PDF of your website.  Unless, you have stolen the picture in the ad, without permission or attribution.  Does "Rock Star Layouts" know that you have published their work?

Another hint... when you create a graph.  It is common to place a title on the graph, then label the axes so that your readers might have a clue as to what you are on about.  Your "Cambrian Explosion" graph is meaningless gobbilty gook.

And you need a citation for your claim of exponential increase in diversity.

Here's another hint.  Chemicals don't reproduce, so 'chemical species' isn't really a good comparison for 'biological species' and I've got to say, that's the strangest definition for biological species I've ever seen.  Perhaps you should use an actual definition, without your weird additions.

Just reading this has caused me to go into a massive depression for the future of humanity.  I will now go eat chocolate ice cream and watch Doctor Who and Amy Pond (Yowza!) until my faith in humanity has been restored and I'm not suicidal.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 05 2012,20:58

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2012,20:39)
I read the first couple of pages.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then you almost made it through the Preface!  

Stopped reading before even reaching the Introduction.

You are even more of a scientific disgrace.  Sorry for my having to be this honest.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2012,21:07

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,20:58)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2012,20:39)
I read the first couple of pages.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then you almost made it through the Preface!  

Stopped reading before even reaching the Introduction.

You are even more of a scientific disgrace.  Sorry for my having to be this honest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm...

Did you read what I wrote?  Obviously not.  Because I specifically commented on things that occurred on page 38 (which I remind you are not numbered)

AND

things that are specifically WRONG with what you have written.

I insult you AND point out mistakes.  You only insult.

I suggest you learn from this experience.  I doubt that you ever will and that saddens me.  A mind truly is a terrible thing to waste... and really, you're a few neurons above that of a talking frog.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 05 2012,21:22

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2012,21:07)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,20:58)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2012,20:39)
I read the first couple of pages.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then you almost made it through the Preface!  

Stopped reading before even reaching the Introduction.

You are even more of a scientific disgrace.  Sorry for my having to be this honest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm...

Did you read what I wrote?  Obviously not.  Because I specifically commented on things that occurred on page 38 (which I remind you are not numbered)

AND

things that are specifically WRONG with what you have written.

I insult you AND point out mistakes.  You only insult.

I suggest you learn from this experience.  I doubt that you ever will and that saddens me.  A mind truly is a terrible thing to waste... and really, you're a few neurons above that of a talking frog.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are trying to save-face by reading almost to Page 1 then scanning for something to quote mine or to make a ridiculous issue out of.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 05 2012,21:22

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,21:58)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2012,20:39)
I read the first couple of pages.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then you almost made it through the Preface!  

Stopped reading before even reaching the Introduction.

You are even more of a scientific disgrace.  Sorry for my having to be this honest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




No wonder you can't get your bullshit published even in IDv vanity press, if I can't fucking make myself read it long enough to find something new to laugh at you for then it's reeeeeeeealllllllllly dumb
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 05 2012,21:42

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2012,21:07)
Did you read what I wrote?  Obviously not.  Because I specifically commented on things that occurred on page 38 (which I remind you are not numbered)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By the way, the page numbers are clearly there on the top left or top right, depending on whether it is an odd or even page.

And I already learned this lesson in another forum that pretended to know what it says, after I checked the hit counter and found that there were 0 new hits.  Not a single one of them even looked at it, yet all pretended to know exactly what is in it.
Posted by: Woodbine on Nov. 05 2012,21:54

So, Gary.

Almost ten pages in and you are getting exactly the same response as the myriad other forums you've visited. For the umpteenth time your theory is being described as unreadable, incoherent, rambling, and your understanding of what a theory is and what it is supposed to do is, yet again, being called into question.

There's a pattern here, Gary....obviously something is going wrong. I see two possibilities here;

A) - You've been terribly unlucky in choosing the correct forum in which to present your work. I mean what else but bad luck could explain the fact that every time you post your work it is immediately shot down as being incoherent, unreadable and patently not a scientific theory?

B) - Your work actually is incoherent, unreadable and patently not a scientific theory.

On the balance of probabilities, Gary, which of the two options seems most likely to be true?
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 05 2012,22:10

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 05 2012,21:54)
So, Gary.

Almost ten pages in and you are getting exactly the same response as the myriad other forums you've visited. For the umpteenth time your theory is being described as unreadable, incoherent, rambling, and your understanding of what a theory is and what it is supposed to do is, yet again, being called into question.

There's a pattern here, Gary....obviously something is going wrong. I see two possibilities here;

A) - You've been terribly unlucky in choosing the correct forum in which to present your work. I mean what else but bad luck could explain the fact that every time you post your work it is immediately shot down as being incoherent, unreadable and patently not a scientific theory?

B) - Your work actually is incoherent, unreadable and patently not a scientific theory.

On the balance of probabilities, Gary, which of the two options seems most likely to be true?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You helped convince me that I need to get back to work on unfinished software that at least science forums (as opposed to religion bashing forums) and programming community does in fact appreciate.  I'll still be responding here, but not bother much with the usual intellectual dishonesty.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2012,22:38

Hey, you're right, there are numbers.

You still haven't talked about your fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection; your comment that organisms choose to adapt; and your complete failure to use graphs correctly.

But, goddamit, I've got fucking page numbers asshole!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2012,22:47

page bump bug??

eta:
yep....

BTW: Gary, it's called science.  

Observation (my post isn't appearing)
Research (remember that this has happened before)
Hypothesis (if I make another post, my first post will appear on the next page of the thread)
Experiment (make another post)
Data (both posts appear)
Conclusion (hypothesis confirmed)

This has happened sufficiently often, in multiple threads and with multiple people who all report the same thing.  We know have a theory about the page bump bug.  If you post again, it will fix itself.

science, it works... you should try it.


Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 05 2012,23:15

While waiting to see whether OgreMkV goes completely insane or not, you may enjoy this excellent thread featuring earlier minimal-code models and more at FractalForums.com where this year's contest entries include fractal-life that's worth checking out:

< Let's collaborate on something! - A (Fractal) Theory Of Everything? >

That is what the theory looks like in a forum where all are interested in math and science.
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 05 2012,23:21

Btw sorry for that. I rather go to work now than following GaGa's BS further.


Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 05 2012,23:37

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 05 2012,23:21)
Btw sorry for that. I rather go to work now than following GaGa's BS further.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And for the musically inclined, here's a major classic to help explain where we're at, and where we're going, forever:

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....GOhFwN4 >
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Nov. 05 2012,23:46

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,22:10)
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 05 2012,21:54)
So, Gary.

Almost ten pages in and you are getting exactly the same response as the myriad other forums you've visited. For the umpteenth time your theory is being described as unreadable, incoherent, rambling, and your understanding of what a theory is and what it is supposed to do is, yet again, being called into question.

There's a pattern here, Gary....obviously something is going wrong. I see two possibilities here;

A) - You've been terribly unlucky in choosing the correct forum in which to present your work. I mean what else but bad luck could explain the fact that every time you post your work it is immediately shot down as being incoherent, unreadable and patently not a scientific theory?

B) - Your work actually is incoherent, unreadable and patently not a scientific theory.

On the balance of probabilities, Gary, which of the two options seems most likely to be true?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You helped convince me that I need to get back to work on unfinished software that at least science forums (as opposed to religion bashing forums) and programming community does in fact appreciate.  I'll still be responding here, but not bother much with the usual intellectual dishonesty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You could try to give up some of the intellectual dishonesty, but we don't really expect it to happen.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 06 2012,00:09

hell i'm just waiting for this feller to tell me why anyone should give a damn about whatever it is he is ranting about

i mean, the flow chart was interesting and all but it totally needed multiple colored fonts.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 06 2012,00:10

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 05 2012,23:46)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,22:10)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 05 2012,21:54)
So, Gary.

Almost ten pages in and you are getting exactly the same response as the myriad other forums you've visited. For the umpteenth time your theory is being described as unreadable, incoherent, rambling, and your understanding of what a theory is and what it is supposed to do is, yet again, being called into question.

There's a pattern here, Gary....obviously something is going wrong. I see two possibilities here;

A) - You've been terribly unlucky in choosing the correct forum in which to present your work. I mean what else but bad luck could explain the fact that every time you post your work it is immediately shot down as being incoherent, unreadable and patently not a scientific theory?

B) - Your work actually is incoherent, unreadable and patently not a scientific theory.

On the balance of probabilities, Gary, which of the two options seems most likely to be true?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You helped convince me that I need to get back to work on unfinished software that at least science forums (as opposed to religion bashing forums) and programming community does in fact appreciate.  I'll still be responding here, but not bother much with the usual intellectual dishonesty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You could try to give up some of the intellectual dishonesty, but we don't really expect it to happen.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evidence please..
Posted by: Woodbine on Nov. 06 2012,01:02

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 06 2012,06:09)
hell i'm just waiting for this feller to tell me why anyone should give a damn about whatever it is he is ranting about

i mean, the flow chart was interesting and all but it totally needed multiple colored fonts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HE WON A PLANET SOURCE CODE AWARD FIVE YEARS AGO!!!!

WHAT MORE DO YOU HOMOS WANT?!

:angry:
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 06 2012,04:20

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,17:10)

The model you are comparing with is not for modeling "intelligent cause".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That was not the point. The point is that if you are able to describe cogently your idea then other people will potentially buy into it to the extent of giving you money so you can work on it.

You are unable to appreciate that it appears.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nor is it origin of life theory that also describes chemistry experiments/models teachers need for class.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's also not many many other things. But what it is is an example of what can be achieved if you construct an idea in a way that other people can understand. Which you have not.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your intellectual laziness very much shows.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet I'm not the one pushing a "theory" that I'm unable to demonstrate produces useful results. You are.

And what is your level of intellectual laziness if you've had the same criticisms over and over yet have not taken steps to correct them?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
chemistry experiments/models teachers need for class.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Tell you what, why don't you show a worksheet based on your work? If you intend for it to be used in class it's got to be more cogent then your ramblings.

So let's see the class worksheet you claim exists!
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 06 2012,05:35

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 06 2012,04:20)
Tell you what, why don't you show a worksheet based on your work? If you intend for it to be used in class it's got to be more cogent then your ramblings.

So let's see the class worksheet you claim exists!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I never claimed to have a class worksheet for the Theory of Intelligent Design.  But wow!  That's actually a great idea.

I'm shocked you would suggest such a straight to the classroom idea.  And it even beats being quiet while Woodbine fishes for another sucker.  Not that I won't still come a running to help set the hook if they get a bite with their new 5=<1 lure.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 06 2012,05:40

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,00:10)
Evidence please..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here you go:
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2012,04:34)
Talk is cheap.

Gary, do something.

E.G. provide a novel result.

If you have a simulation of intelligence then why don't you use it to solve a problem.

The TSP comes to mind. Go for it!

Or anything really.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

To which you replied:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The most novel and stunning application I know of is to give it speech then as long as consciousness in not required (or somehow posses it) I expect it would go out of it's mind with panic where told they are being made gone (killed).  I would not try that with a robot though, it could get very dangerous.  In virtual reality it might just be a little traumatic to the experimenter, especially when they actually do have to turn off the program, which then ends their life, because of the experiment being over.

EA's and GA's keep trying random solutions to solve a given problem and even though they might solve it that is not a test of how well it models reality.  Only seems like it because you were conditioned to think that way.  In reality though, the best sign of intelligence/reality is it tells you to go solve your own damn problem, because they're busy.  Or gets your drink from the fridge then dumps it on your head while calling you a lazy slob.

Real intelligence is often not very cooperative.  And when you take away it's individuality you get a virtually unintelligent zombie.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, when asked to do *something, anything* with your wonderful theory you back down saying your "intelligence" would go out of it's mind with panic where told they are being made gone (killed) so, sorry, but you won't do it.

A more complete, self contained example of intellectual dishonesty I have yet to see.

Gary: I can do X.
Everyone: Go on then, do X.
Gary: Ah, I can't do X because of Y.
Everyone: But you don't know Y will happen unless you've done it already, so you must have done it at least once already to know that so produce that data instead?
Gary: .....
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 06 2012,05:44

Gary,
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I never claimed to have a class worksheet for the Theory of Intelligent Design.  But wow!  That's actually a great idea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You said:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since I did not see a Theory of Intelligent Design being possible I instead worked on original models and classroom experiments that were put together mostly at the KCFS forum.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There was also added inspiration by email from Kathy Martin who instead of being negative and hating the idea was encouraging my search for an easy kitchen/classroom experiment to help explain what was later found to be called "self-assembly".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The theory has a little bit of everything, but not so much that it's beyond a good K-12 education level.  That's what's important, and why it's doing very well in science via science classroom and how-to community that loves that sort of model/theory too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what I'm actually asking is for you to produce whatever it was that you claim made it into textbooks and/or classrooms that was based upon your theory.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm shocked you would suggest such a straight to the classroom idea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, you gave the impression that you've already done so. So I'd like to see the proof of that.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 And it even beats being quiet while Woodbine fishes for another sucker.  Not that I won't still come a running to help set the hook if they get a bite with their new 5=<1 lure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whatever.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 06 2012,05:46

In case that's too complex for you, I'd like to see your original models and classroom experiments that were put together mostly at the KCFS forum.

Perhaps they'll explain your theory better then you can.
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 06 2012,06:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No wonder you can't get your bullshit published even in IDv vanity press,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Indeed they won't be interested unless it involves



GG seems to think AtBC has more credibility...



Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 06 2012,06:30

Gary says his theory is being used in classrooms:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's what's important, and why it's doing very well in science via science classroom and how-to community that loves that sort of model/theory too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Which classrooms Gary?

Bible University?

Why can't you prove any of this? Which classrooms, what is being taught and how does it relate to your theory?

Book editions and page numbers please.
Posted by: olegt on Nov. 06 2012,06:37

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,23:15)
While waiting to see whether OgreMkV goes completely insane or not, you may enjoy this excellent thread featuring earlier minimal-code models and more at FractalForums.com where this year's contest entries include fractal-life that's worth checking out:

< Let's collaborate on something! - A (Fractal) Theory Of Everything? >

That is what the theory looks like in a forum where all are interested in math and science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A quote from Gary's opening post:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have known about fractals and their basics but am relatively new to their details.  From what I read here and elsewhere I appear to be working with one but never knew what to call it.  Which brought me here looking for more information on them.  It still appears to be a fractal, but other opinions on that are welcome.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dude isn't even sure whether fractals are relevant to his musings, but it's a sexy word, so he appends it to the name of his "theory."

All the signs of a cargo cult.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 06 2012,07:09

From a thread that's 2 years old that went nowhere.

yeah, I'm impressed.

Gary, just tell me one thing that your program/theory can do that is unique to your program/theory?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 06 2012,07:47

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,00:10)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 05 2012,23:46)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,22:10)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 05 2012,21:54)
So, Gary.

Almost ten pages in and you are getting exactly the same response as the myriad other forums you've visited. For the umpteenth time your theory is being described as unreadable, incoherent, rambling, and your understanding of what a theory is and what it is supposed to do is, yet again, being called into question.

There's a pattern here, Gary....obviously something is going wrong. I see two possibilities here;

A) - You've been terribly unlucky in choosing the correct forum in which to present your work. I mean what else but bad luck could explain the fact that every time you post your work it is immediately shot down as being incoherent, unreadable and patently not a scientific theory?

B) - Your work actually is incoherent, unreadable and patently not a scientific theory.

On the balance of probabilities, Gary, which of the two options seems most likely to be true?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You helped convince me that I need to get back to work on unfinished software that at least science forums (as opposed to religion bashing forums) and programming community does in fact appreciate.  I'll still be responding here, but not bother much with the usual intellectual dishonesty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You could try to give up some of the intellectual dishonesty, but we don't really expect it to happen.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evidence please..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like how, I've twice now pointed out flaws in your 'paper', that you have totally ignored except to insult me.

Like your fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection.  Evidence for the exponential increase in species in the Cambrian. And your totally useless graphs (which, BTW, is 3rd grade type of stuff).

So, will you address these areas?  It doesn't matter if I'm insane or not*, because those issues still exist.  If you don't address them, then no one is going to take you seriously (giggle).


* And if I am insane, I suspect is was reading your paper that drove me over the edge.  Karen Gillam can only do so much.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 06 2012,08:03

My goodness, there are now so many trolling the pond their lines are destined to get all tangled up together.

But FYI:

< http://www.islamicboard.com/health-....1513273 >

< http://www.islamicboard.com/health-....in.html >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 06 2012,08:27

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,08:03)
My goodness, there are now so many trolling the pond their lines are destined to get all tangled up together.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Coward.

Liar.

Dissembler.

Honour-less cur.

IDiot.

Get yourself to UD already. They don't mind impenetrable buzzword bingo over there, in fact the more opaque the better as opaque claims are not testable.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 06 2012,08:29

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2012,07:47)
Like how, I've twice now pointed out flaws in your 'paper', that you have totally ignored except to insult me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you think we all missed this Gary?

How you'd rather provide irrelevant links then answer the question?

I'd love to see you submit your work for peer review. And that's why you never will, you know exactly what'll happen.

Yes, post some random links to some random site and attempt to take the thread off at a tangent.

You MUST BE NEW AROUND HERE huh?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 06 2012,08:37

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,08:03)
My goodness, there are now so many trolling the pond their lines are destined to get all tangled up together.

But FYI:

< http://www.islamicboard.com/health-....1513273 >

< http://www.islamicboard.com/health-....in.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps if you would answer questions when they are asked, deal with issues as they arise, and provide explanations when requested, then you wouldn't have so many issues intertwining.

Believe it or not, most of the people here would actually like to help you develop this notion.  That way it can be tested and the question can be settled once and for all.

So, are you going to deal with your misunderstanding of natural selection, explain (and cite references to) your comment about the exponential increase in species in the Cambrian, and perhaps make the graphs in your paper understandable?

BTW: Have you ever read a peer-reviewed paper?  They have citations for everything that they say that isn't their own work.  You have zero.  At least, there are no references in the body text that I found.  I think you need to do a lot of reading and figuring out what actual scientists are saying and then incorporate reality into your paper... but then it wouldn't be about intelligent bacteria deciding to grow a flagellum would it?
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 06 2012,08:51

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,17:24)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 05 2012,11:25)
 
What is your theory Gary?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where's a sample of your work?  Show me one hypothesis or theory (such as a paper describing how a metabolic system works that is based on protein crystallization data that you produced) that you published anywhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What work? I haven't made a claim on this thread that needs any work to support it. I'm just sitting here waiting for you to back up your claims. That's it Gary. I'm just here sipping a cup o' tea and looking up from my paper every once in awhile whilst you prattle on, awaiting (apparently in vain) for some actual substance from you. But since you've provided no substance thus far, I'm under no obligation to provide any work of my own to either rebut the nonsense you've yet to provide or to support claims that I haven't made.

Sorry Gary, but you're barking up the wrong tree. This is your thread in which you get to support your claims. If you don't or can't do so, it's no skin off my teeth. My published work is irrelevant to your lack of content.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 06 2012,09:03

i'm just waiting for the fucking abstract

Is that so much to ask?

"Download my word document from this website and read the whole thing before you can comment"

plus

youtube link

hmmmmmm....  do i know you, suckah?





ho^w are you get^ing past the bat^shi* nan^ny fil^ter?
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 06 2012,09:11

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,23:15)
While waiting to see whether OgreMkV goes completely insane or not, you may enjoy this excellent thread...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope. Not interested

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,23:15)
That is what the theory looks like in a forum where all are interested in math and science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wrong again. That isn't a theory Gary, in any sense of the term.
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 06 2012,09:44

GG should have his name changed to 'Lenny's Tumble Weeds"
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 06 2012,09:54

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2012,08:37)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,08:03)
My goodness, there are now so many trolling the pond their lines are destined to get all tangled up together.

But FYI:

< http://www.islamicboard.com/health-....1513273 >

< http://www.islamicboard.com/health-....in.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps if you would answer questions when they are asked, deal with issues as they arise, and provide explanations when requested, then you wouldn't have so many issues intertwining.

Believe it or not, most of the people here would actually like to help you develop this notion.  That way it can be tested and the question can be settled once and for all.

So, are you going to deal with your misunderstanding of natural selection, explain (and cite references to) your comment about the exponential increase in species in the Cambrian, and perhaps make the graphs in your paper understandable?

BTW: Have you ever read a peer-reviewed paper?  They have citations for everything that they say that isn't their own work.  You have zero.  At least, there are no references in the body text that I found.  I think you need to do a lot of reading and figuring out what actual scientists are saying and then incorporate reality into your paper... but then it wouldn't be about intelligent bacteria deciding to grow a flagellum would it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Considering the first comic that they just posted in their last reply above, I would imagine that k.e.. might find it topical.

And believe it or not, except for ideas that happen regardless of forum conditions, I long ago gave up on this place helping develop this notion/theory.  I'm just seeing the usual religion bashing and pompous politics, not science.  The way everything I say gets twisted around I'm wasting way too much time answering ridiculous accusations.  Readers likely know what's up anyway.  They are smart enough to understand that it is scientifically unethical to trash a theory before even studying it.  But historically, that's the way it works.  Ones with scientific "authority" rip your life apart while hoping you drop dead from starvation, as they pity what they decree are misguided ramblings.  Here's just one of them:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Richard Owen, an ambitious leading figure of Victorian science, wrote one of the main reviews of the Origin of Species for the respected Edinburgh Review. Owen vacilated between accepting or denying evolution but was certain that Darwin's proposed mechanisms were wrong. Owen argued instead for a confusing theory of "the continuous operation of the ordained becoming of living things." In addition to throwing scorn at Darwin's ideas Owen heaped praise on his own!

< http://www.victorianweb.org/science....in.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 06 2012,10:07

For the nth time...

You do NOT have a theory.  A theory, by definition, is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through experiment and observation.

Since nothing you have posted is testable (creating an intelligence and then letting it test something, is NOT testable).  You haven't even gotten to the level of hypothesis yet.  You have a notion and a sucky one at that.

And for the 4th time, you dodge directly relevant questions and issues regarding the material you posted.  Why is that?  I though you were interested in discussing this, though it appears I was wrong.  I always give people the benefit of the doubt and think that they actually want to learn and grow, so I try to help them.  You, and every single other creationist I have ever talked with, are not interested in learning or science for that matter.  That much is obvious from your major mistakes in your work.

You spent all that time drawing flowcharts and writing software and typing up your thoughts, but they are all 100% useless and a waste of time because you have made some fundamental mistakes in your work.

Since you refuse to correct, or even acknowledge, those mistakes, there's nothing anyone can do to help you.  So, why are you here?
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 06 2012,10:10

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,09:54)
They are smart enough to understand that it is scientifically unethical to trash a theory before even studying it.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well Gary, it's a little hard to study it when neither you nor any other supposed "proponent" can actually articulate it. I can't imagine how any of us have trashed your theory when none of us actually know what it is.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 06 2012,10:11

Gary,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And believe it or not, except for ideas that happen regardless of forum conditions, I long ago gave up on this place helping develop this notion/theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The sad thing is you are unlikely to find a more qualified group of people to help you do exactly that.

Your loss.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm just seeing the usual religion bashing and pompous politics, not science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's because you have not brought any science to the table. Or perhaps you have, it's impossible to tell due to the barriers you are putting in peoples way.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The way everything I say gets twisted around I'm wasting way too much time answering ridiculous accusations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, like when you make a claim (e.g. your work is in schools right now helping explain "emergence") and are asked to back it up with evidence?

As far as I can see you've "wasted" no time at all answering ridiculous accusations as you've not answered any at all.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Readers likely know what's up anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They sure do. They've seen your kind come and go many times.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They are smart enough to understand that it is scientifically unethical to trash a theory before even studying it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here is "TimeCube".

< http://www.timecube.com/....ube....ube.com >

Please study the theory of TimeCube and let me know what you think. It might take a while.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But historically, that's the way it works.  Ones with scientific "authority" rip your life apart while hoping you drop dead from starvation, as they pity what they decree are misguided ramblings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then you are vindicated, your theory can produce novel results that the theory it is replacing cannot produce and you've won.

All that could be yours, and more!

Except, of course, it won't be. As you are just another creationist who wants to put a few thousand sciency words in-between your creationist beliefs and your "theory".

Or perhaps you are not, who can tell?

So, Gary, all you have to do is show that your "theory, program" or whatever can produce or explain something that competing theory cannot. And then you'll be taken seriously.

You see the TimeCube guy Gary? That's you that is, you've made yourself into him. And you'll be taken as seriously as long as you keep up the whiny persecution complex going rather then doing some actual work.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 06 2012,10:13

Pagebug.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Nov. 06 2012,10:17

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,00:10)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 05 2012,23:46)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,22:10)
   
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 05 2012,21:54)
So, Gary.

Almost ten pages in and you are getting exactly the same response as the myriad other forums you've visited. For the umpteenth time your theory is being described as unreadable, incoherent, rambling, and your understanding of what a theory is and what it is supposed to do is, yet again, being called into question.

There's a pattern here, Gary....obviously something is going wrong. I see two possibilities here;

A) - You've been terribly unlucky in choosing the correct forum in which to present your work. I mean what else but bad luck could explain the fact that every time you post your work it is immediately shot down as being incoherent, unreadable and patently not a scientific theory?

B) - Your work actually is incoherent, unreadable and patently not a scientific theory.

On the balance of probabilities, Gary, which of the two options seems most likely to be true?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You helped convince me that I need to get back to work on unfinished software that at least science forums (as opposed to religion bashing forums) and programming community does in fact appreciate.  I'll still be responding here, but not bother much with the usual intellectual dishonesty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You could try to give up some of the intellectual dishonesty, but we don't really expect it to happen.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evidence please..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?  How many claims have you made that need backing up?  I won't bother counting, but it's many.  How many have you backed up?  None, or next to none.  This is one of the more choice bits, though:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, we've asked for evidence from the IDiots forever, and you haven't exactly improved the response rate--that is, with real evidence instead of "gee, it's complex" or some mindless equivalent.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 06 2012,10:32

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 06 2012,10:11)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm just seeing the usual religion bashing and pompous politics, not science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Question for you Gary.

Do you see us religion bashing in this thread because we're attacking your notion of Intelligent Design?

So, are you admitting that ID is religious in nature?

Because, I see no religion bashing in this thread.  Other threads, sure, but those threads aren't about you, now are they?
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Nov. 06 2012,10:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Around a few years ago (just prior to the release of Ben Stein – Expelled movie that I found upsetting) out of frustration over the conflict that I was stuck in the middle of I had a brainstorm that made me realize that I could clinch the theory with the computer model I have for decades been experimenting with, which would end the controversy. But instead of the side claiming to be representing science thinking that an entirely scientific solution was a great idea I was called all kinds of names,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(from one of many fora he's infested without evidence but demanding to have his junk taken seriously--Googleable)

I found Expelled to be disturbing as well.  I just suspect not in the same way...

Does most of your "knowledge" come from scurrilous propaganda, Gary?

Glen Davidson
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 06 2012,11:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I could clinch the theory with the computer model I have for decades been experimenting with, which would end the controversy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So what happened Gary?

Scientists are convinced by (ideally!) science. You do science, nobody will argue with that.

It's like this.

If you submit something to a journal where there is public peer review, what do you think will happen? People will not make fools of themselves by rejecting your work out of hand. It's all on the record. If they have valid objections it's for you to counter those objections.

If you'd have launched your theory, with say a demonstration of the power of your model who could argue with that?

But instead you expect people to do all the work for you?

That's just not how it works, if it was you'd have been the success in the real world you undoubtedly are already in your own mind.

I'd like to help Gary, I really would. I've just started doing the most advanced programming I've ever done. I could be of great assistance.

All you have to do is convince me you are for real. Demonstrate novel results. Generate new data.

heh.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 06 2012,13:38

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2012,10:32)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 06 2012,10:11)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm just seeing the usual religion bashing and pompous politics, not science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Question for you Gary.

Do you see us religion bashing in this thread because we're attacking your notion of Intelligent Design?

So, are you admitting that ID is religious in nature?

Because, I see no religion bashing in this thread.  Other threads, sure, but those threads aren't about you, now are they?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Honestly, this thread only best illustrates the usual pompous stereotyping.

All threads together best illustrates the usual religion bashing that the theory makes possible, where you call it science but it's still just a good excuse for bashing religions other than your own.

Needing me to side with you on the Theory of Intelligent Design being religious illustrates how good some are at ignoring what I said about it already being a scientific theory, not religion.  In that case, it is your religion (whatever it is) that makes it religious.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Nov. 06 2012,13:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Needing me to side with you on the Theory of Intelligent Design being religious illustrates how good some are at ignoring what I said about it already being a scientific theory, not religion
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why of course, its status is decided by declaration.  

How like, what was that again?  Oh yes, religion.

Ever thought of amassing evidence and making a reasonable argument for something?  No, you're too busy with supposition to bother with real science.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 06 2012,13:48

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,10:10)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,09:54)
They are smart enough to understand that it is scientifically unethical to trash a theory before even studying it.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well Gary, it's a little hard to study it when neither you nor any other supposed "proponent" can actually articulate it. I can't imagine how any of us have trashed your theory when none of us actually know what it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now you know why I would rather publish my work where there are peers who can articulate it.  At least they know what else is around, and why this is a very scientifically exciting and useful theory.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 06 2012,13:50

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,13:38)
All threads together best illustrates the usual religion bashing that the theory makes possible, where you call it science but it's still just a good excuse for bashing religions other than your own.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary, I'm going to try and ask this as slowly as possible so that you can understand:

How can our responses to your posts be considered religious bashing unless you've offered up a religious position to bash? And I'm afraid that if you have offered up a religious position to bash, then by definition it isn't science.

Oh, and for the umpteenth along with others, you haven't provided anything resembling a theory, so there's really no point in continuing to make that absurd claim.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 06 2012,13:55

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,13:48)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,10:10)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,09:54)
They are smart enough to understand that it is scientifically unethical to trash a theory before even studying it.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well Gary, it's a little hard to study it when neither you nor any other supposed "proponent" can actually articulate it. I can't imagine how any of us have trashed your theory when none of us actually know what it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now you know why I would rather publish my work where there are peers who can articulate it.  At least they know what else is around, and why this is a very scientifically exciting and useful theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well Gary, just so you know, I'm not going to hold my breath  until the folks at the mystery publishing place you reference actually go about articulating this supposed theory of yours. But please, could you copy and paste this illuminating articulation here when they get around to actually...umm...articulating it, m'kay? Or maybe I'll hear about it at your Nobel acceptance speech...
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 06 2012,14:11

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,13:55)
Well Gary, just so you know, I'm not going to hold my breath  until the folks at the mystery publishing place you reference actually go about articulating this supposed theory of yours. But please, could you copy and paste this illuminating articulation here when they get around to actually...umm...articulating it, m'kay? Or maybe I'll hear about it at your Nobel acceptance speech...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Theory of Intelligent Design - Was Published Here. >
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 06 2012,14:21

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,14:11)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,13:55)
Well Gary, just so you know, I'm not going to hold my breath  until the folks at the mystery publishing place you reference actually go about articulating this supposed theory of yours. But please, could you copy and paste this illuminating articulation here when they get around to actually...umm...articulating it, m'kay? Or maybe I'll hear about it at your Nobel acceptance speech...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Theory of Intelligent Design - Was Published Here. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BZZZZZ...wrong!

There's no theory there. We've been through this Gary. Several of us have provided you with the parameters and definition for a scientific theory. Links to baffle-gaggle on artificial intelligence and system development are not a theory of intelligent design. Nice try though.

ETA: Linky

BTW, see < here > for a very well-stated definition of a scientific theory and why what you keep claiming isn't one.


Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 06 2012,14:31

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,14:21)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,14:11)
 
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,13:55)
Well Gary, just so you know, I'm not going to hold my breath  until the folks at the mystery publishing place you reference actually go about articulating this supposed theory of yours. But please, could you copy and paste this illuminating articulation here when they get around to actually...umm...articulating it, m'kay? Or maybe I'll hear about it at your Nobel acceptance speech...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Theory of Intelligent Design - Was Published Here. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BZZZZZ...wrong!

There's no theory there. We've been through this Gary. Several of us have provided you with the parameters and definition for a scientific theory. Links to baffle-gaggle on artificial intelligence and system development are not a theory of intelligent design. Nice try though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< And Your Nine Inch Nails - Are Here. >
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 06 2012,14:40

1) I'm an atheist, I have no religion (and no atheism and science are not religions)

2) Posting an article on the internet does not mean it was published by a peer-reviewed journal.  I can easily publish a post declaring myself the king of France and requiring that the citizens of that country send me the entirety of the national treasury.  Just because I post it doesn't mean it's going to happen.

3) You still have not addressed (after 5 comments directly to me) the issue that you have a fundamental miunderstanding of natural selection, you have not explained (nor cited a reference to) your comment about the exponential increase in species in the Cambrian, or asked or corrected your terrible graphs.  Seriously, 3rd graders know that graphs need a title and axis labels.

Let me ask you, do you think that us asking for things like explanations of what you say is an 'attack'?  You have never been in front of peer-review committee have you?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 06 2012,14:41

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,15:11)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,13:55)
Well Gary, just so you know, I'm not going to hold my breath  until the folks at the mystery publishing place you reference actually go about articulating this supposed theory of yours. But please, could you copy and paste this illuminating articulation here when they get around to actually...umm...articulating it, m'kay? Or maybe I'll hear about it at your Nobel acceptance speech...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Theory of Intelligent Design - Was Published Here. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




That's not a theory, you tiresome bore
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 06 2012,14:58

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 06 2012,12:41)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,15:11)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,13:55)
Well Gary, just so you know, I'm not going to hold my breath  until the folks at the mystery publishing place you reference actually go about articulating this supposed theory of yours. But please, could you copy and paste this illuminating articulation here when they get around to actually...umm...articulating it, m'kay? Or maybe I'll hear about it at your Nobel acceptance speech...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Theory of Intelligent Design - Was Published Here. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




That's not a theory, you tiresome bore
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not a publication, either.

Incidentally, does anyone whose name isn't Gary Gaulin look at him touting the multicoloured "award" in his sig and think "Wow, that's impressive", rather than "Sad bastard"?  I've won a couple of ATBC POTW awards.  They're just as relevant to my credibility as a scientist.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 06 2012,15:00

reminds me of that old saw about the guy with a 2 inch penis who showed up at an orgy, and some smart alecky whores were laughing and asked him "who do you think you are going to please with that little old thing" and he said "me, goddammit, me"
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 06 2012,15:12

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 06 2012,14:58)
It's not a publication, either.

Incidentally, does anyone whose name isn't Gary Gaulin look at him touting the multicoloured "award" in his sig and think "Wow, that's impressive", rather than "Sad bastard"?  I've won a couple of ATBC POTW awards.  They're just as relevant to my credibility as a scientist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait.  I just realized (and it shows how much I care), isn't the Planet Source Code his own website.

So, he awarded himself a superior coding award?  Seriously Gary?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 06 2012,15:27

From that link:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Whatever you say Gary. But it is notable that in addition to responding to criticism with claims of bullying, you seem intent on keeping a "scientific theory" that deals with biology as far away from biologists as possible,

Anyway, I have said my piece and seen how you respond to criticism with insult, rather than a reasoned and rational rebuttal. Clearly your work was not worthy of my time and I stand by my score. Good day to you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Seems to be a pattern forming.

Hey, Gary, does your "intelligence" do pattern recognition?
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 06 2012,16:04

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2012,13:12)
Wait.  I just realized (and it shows how much I care), isn't the Planet Source Code his own website.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't think so.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi! My name is Ian Ippolito and I am the founder and creator of Planet Source Code.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(< linky >)
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 06 2012,16:52

In case some are wondering why I'm not bowing down (or should I say bending over?) for this forum, my multidisciplinary work already made it to the museum level.  I'm very comfortably well known/respected in academia.  Over the years I have literally had busloads of science teachers, science students, paleontology society, paleontologists and more here at my house to have fun with science with me.  Thanks to others who also live for science I am able to get around real good without ever having to leave home.  Here's something recent that I'm very proud of as well:

< Nathaniel S. Fox, Interpretation of Early Mesozoic Ichnology in Holyoke, MA >

< Direct Download of the Above PowerPoint - Is Here >

I very well know what science and a scientific theory is.  And I have many years of experience with intellectual snobbery from know-it-all science-stoppers who spit on you from their overreaching high-chairs, in order to make themselves appear to be scientific.

I'm (in the name of science) here to set science right.  In this case that requires taking scientific power that can be used or abused away from those who were scientifically irresponsible with it, while empowering ones who deserve it such as Planet Source Code, which was not created by me it was created by Ian Ippolito, who certainly did right, by science, and myself.

< More Info Here >
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 06 2012,17:01

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,14:52)
In case some are wondering why I'm not bowing down (or should I say bending over?) for this forum, my multidisciplinary work already made it to the museum level.  I'm very comfortably well known/respected in academia.  Over the years I have literally had busloads of science teachers, science students, paleontology society, paleontologists and more here at my house to have fun with science with me.  Thanks to others who also live for science I am able to get around real good without ever having to leave home.  Here's something recent that I'm very proud of as well:

< Nathaniel S. Fox, Interpretation of Early Mesozoic Ichnology in Holyoke, MA >

< Direct Download of the Above PowerPoint - Is Here >

I very well know what science and a scientific theory is.  And I have many years of experience with intellectual snobbery from know-it-all science-stoppers who spit on you from their overreaching high-chairs, in order to make themselves appear to be scientific.

I'm (in the name of science) here to set science right.  In this case that requires taking scientific power that can be used or abused away from those who were scientifically irresponsible with it, while empowering ones who deserve it such as Planet Source Code, which was not created by me it was created by Ian Ippolito, who certainly did right, by science, and myself.

< More Info Here >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How enlightening.  You're acknowledged as "property owner".  Perhaps you could talk us through the way Dr Fox made use of your "theory" in analysing these tracks?  Because I don't see any reference to you doing any of the actual science.

By "multidisciplanary work", did you mean you used two shovels?
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 06 2012,19:35

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,11:48)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,10:10)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,09:54)
They are smart enough to understand that it is scientifically unethical to trash a theory before even studying it.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well Gary, it's a little hard to study it when neither you nor any other supposed "proponent" can actually articulate it. I can't imagine how any of us have trashed your theory when none of us actually know what it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now you know why I would rather publish my work where there are peers who can articulate it.  At least they know what else is around, and why this is a very scientifically exciting and useful theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Will you describe exactly how the so-called "theory" is "useful", especially "scientifically"?

IDiots have been claiming for years that the acceptance of "ID" by science would change science for the better and open new avenues of research. When they're asked for details the IDiots either run away or just keep claiming that the acceptance of "ID" by science would change science for the better and open new avenues of research.

So, can and will you describe a real world situation where the acceptance of "ID" (alleged intelligent design and creation by a supernatural entity - aka "God") would change science for the better and open new avenues of research?
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 06 2012,22:21

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 06 2012,19:35)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,11:48)
       
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,10:10)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,09:54)
They are smart enough to understand that it is scientifically unethical to trash a theory before even studying it.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well Gary, it's a little hard to study it when neither you nor any other supposed "proponent" can actually articulate it. I can't imagine how any of us have trashed your theory when none of us actually know what it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now you know why I would rather publish my work where there are peers who can articulate it.  At least they know what else is around, and why this is a very scientifically exciting and useful theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Will you describe exactly how the so-called "theory" is "useful", especially "scientifically"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The theory I work on is a much more complete model of reality.  It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.  It's also the only model that makes immediate sense of what < Guenter Albrecht-Buehler > and others are now discovering, that 20+ years ago was predicted by the theory to exist.

   
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 06 2012,19:35)
IDiots have been claiming for years that the acceptance of "ID" by science would change science for the better and open new avenues of research. When they're asked for details the IDiots either run away or just keep claiming that the acceptance of "ID" by science would change science for the better and open new avenues of research.

So, can and will you describe a real world situation where the acceptance of "ID" (alleged intelligent design and creation by a supernatural entity - aka "God") would change science for the better and open new avenues of research?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Theories which require unexplained/unexplainable "supernatural" intervention are religious theories not scientific theories, therefore they do not open new avenues of scientific research.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 06 2012,23:17

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 06 2012,15:27)
From that link:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Whatever you say Gary. But it is notable that in addition to responding to criticism with claims of bullying, you seem intent on keeping a "scientific theory" that deals with biology as far away from biologists as possible,

Anyway, I have said my piece and seen how you respond to criticism with insult, rather than a reasoned and rational rebuttal. Clearly your work was not worthy of my time and I stand by my score. Good day to you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Seems to be a pattern forming.

Hey, Gary, does your "intelligence" do pattern recognition?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, that's how it sees where it's going, and what to head towards.  For most reliable "hidden feature" detection (where there are many pixels addressing action data) using digital RAM for memory (instead of network type addressing as in neural networks and what Arnold Trehub explained) may require adding (as per David Heiserman) Gamma function.  Or use digital RAM memory to model Trehub synaptic matrix memory, which should have no problem finding best-fit with what it knows.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 06 2012,23:35

I think that was a series of "no"'s, TWT.
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 07 2012,00:37

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 06 2012,21:35)
I think that was a series of "no"'s, TWT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep   :)
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 07 2012,00:48

Gary:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To make that claim stick, you'd have to have done a broad survey of capabilities of evolutionary computation instances and made specific comparisons demonstrating the superiority of your approach. I doubt that this has happened. You could dispel that by showing your work. Let's start with your comparison of your program and that of < Eureqa >. Please show us how your program does symbolic regression better than Eureqa. And then PyEvolve. And DEAP. And PyGP. Your claim implies that you've already taken this step, so all I'm asking for is that you show us what you must already have in hand.

Others have already asked for a similar comparison concerning the TSP. I'd be interested in that, too. I asked Bill Dembski to make his criticism of GAs stick when considering the TSP back in 1997, and so far as I know, he has never even attempted a discussion in general that focuses on the TSP. Can you do better?
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 07 2012,01:15

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2012,14:40)
1) I'm an atheist, I have no religion (and no atheism and science are not religions)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In the US the legal status (and my opinion) of Atheism is a religion:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......atheism >

My experience with science-bashing (in the name of Atheism) includes Guenter's disclaimer that was the result of his work becoming popular with non-Atheists who love intelligence related research, which in turn resulted in protest from Atheists, Secular Humanists, Free Thinkers, etc., who bashed their work too.  And the philosophical arguments from the Atheist religion that needs still uncorrected retina biology that left out Muller cell light guides (with near 100% efficiency) is no different at all from why you blame the other side of doing, in the name of religion.

Here are the "My Best Theory" lyrics that for some reason exactly describe my experience in the middle/center of this two sided "culture war" that this forum helps conduct:

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....l2i1QeU >

Hopefully, what I see in the song, now makes perfect sense.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 07 2012,01:37

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,00:48)
Gary:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To make that claim stick, you'd have to have done a broad survey of capabilities of evolutionary computation instances and made specific comparisons demonstrating the superiority of your approach. I doubt that this has happened. You could dispel that by showing your work. Let's start with your comparison of your program and that of < Eureqa >. Please show us how your program does symbolic regression better than Eureqa. And then PyEvolve. And DEAP. And PyGP. Your claim implies that you've already taken this step, so all I'm asking for is that you show us what you must already have in hand.

Others have already asked for a similar comparison concerning the TSP. I'd be interested in that, too. I asked Bill Dembski to make his criticism of GAs stick when considering the TSP back in 1997, and so far as I know, he has never even attempted a discussion in general that focuses on the TSP. Can you do better?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you please first explain to me why (even where you could) better solving a Traveling Salesman Problem proves that a GA/EA is a better model of intelligence than a cognitive model that has long been used to explain how intelligence works?

Your comparison is identical to one that concludes a pocket calculator (or software) is far more intelligent than a human brain, because it is far superior for solving hard math problems.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 07 2012,01:39

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,00:48)
Gary:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To make that claim stick, you'd have to have done a broad survey of capabilities of evolutionary computation instances and made specific comparisons demonstrating the superiority of your approach. I doubt that this has happened. You could dispel that by showing your work. Let's start with your comparison of your program and that of < Eureqa >. Please show us how your program does symbolic regression better than Eureqa. And then PyEvolve. And DEAP. And PyGP. Your claim implies that you've already taken this step, so all I'm asking for is that you show us what you must already have in hand.

Others have already asked for a similar comparison concerning the TSP. I'd be interested in that, too. I asked Bill Dembski to make his criticism of GAs stick when considering the TSP back in 1997, and so far as I know, he has never even attempted a discussion in general that focuses on the TSP. Can you do better?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Can you first explain to me why (even where you could) better solving a Traveling Salesman Problem proves that a GA/EA is a better model of intelligence than a cognitive model that has long been used to explain how intelligence works?

Your comparison is identical to one that concludes a pocket calculator (or software) is far more intelligent than a human brain, because it is far superior for solving hard math problems.
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 07 2012,02:03

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,20:21)
   
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 06 2012,19:35)
             
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,11:48)
             
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,10:10)
               
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,09:54)
They are smart enough to understand that it is scientifically unethical to trash a theory before even studying it.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well Gary, it's a little hard to study it when neither you nor any other supposed "proponent" can actually articulate it. I can't imagine how any of us have trashed your theory when none of us actually know what it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now you know why I would rather publish my work where there are peers who can articulate it.  At least they know what else is around, and why this is a very scientifically exciting and useful theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Will you describe exactly how the so-called "theory" is "useful", especially "scientifically"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The theory I work on is a much more complete model of reality.  It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.  It's also the only model that makes immediate sense of what < Guenter Albrecht-Buehler > and others are now discovering, that 20+ years ago was predicted by the theory to exist.

         
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 06 2012,19:35)
IDiots have been claiming for years that the acceptance of "ID" by science would change science for the better and open new avenues of research. When they're asked for details the IDiots either run away or just keep claiming that the acceptance of "ID" by science would change science for the better and open new avenues of research.

So, can and will you describe a real world situation where the acceptance of "ID" (alleged intelligent design and creation by a supernatural entity - aka "God") would change science for the better and open new avenues of research?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Theories which require unexplained/unexplainable "supernatural" intervention are religious theories not scientific theories, therefore they do not open new avenues of scientific research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You claim that the so-called "theory" is a much more complete model of reality but that's just your claim and you haven't described how science's acceptance of the so-called "theory" would be useful, change science for the better, or open new avenues of research. What good is your so-called "theory" if it doesn't do anything positive? You're going to have to do a lot more than make claims that you're unwilling and/or unable to back up if you want science and science supporters to take you seriously.

The more you say the more you sound just like all the other ID pushers. You dance around and wave your arms a lot but you won't get down to the nitty gritty and SHOW how the so-called "theory" will actually do anything that will benefit science and the world.

You said:

"Theories which require unexplained/unexplainable "supernatural" intervention are religious theories not scientific theories, therefore they do not open new avenues of scientific research."

Then why are you pushing "ID", which is completely dependent on a supernatural designer (aka "God")? You try to make it sound as though your so-called "ID theory" ("The theory I work on...") is different from the religious/political agenda (dishonestly and poorly masked as "ID" and/or the "ID inference") that typical god zombie IDiots push, but you also refer to some typical god zombie IDiots as though what they say is connected to and supports your so-called "theory".

If your so-called "theory" is actually different and you're not an IDiot of a feather flocking together with typical god zombie dominionist IDiots, then why do you refer to any of them in any way in an attempt to support your claims? And if your so-called "theory" is not a religious/political agenda or dependent on a supernatural designer god, then why are you associating yourself with god zombie IDiots who are trying to push "ID" into science, public school science classes, government, etc., and who or what is the non-religious, non-supernatural 'designer' and who or what designed the non-supernatural 'designer'?

Tell me Gary, exactly which parts of the "ID inference" that is pushed by the usual gang of IDiots do you agree with or disagree with and exactly how is your so-called "ID theory" different from their inference religious and political agenda?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 07 2012,02:05

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,01:39)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,00:48)
Gary:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To make that claim stick, you'd have to have done a broad survey of capabilities of evolutionary computation instances and made specific comparisons demonstrating the superiority of your approach. I doubt that this has happened. You could dispel that by showing your work. Let's start with your comparison of your program and that of < Eureqa >. Please show us how your program does symbolic regression better than Eureqa. And then PyEvolve. And DEAP. And PyGP. Your claim implies that you've already taken this step, so all I'm asking for is that you show us what you must already have in hand.

Others have already asked for a similar comparison concerning the TSP. I'd be interested in that, too. I asked Bill Dembski to make his criticism of GAs stick when considering the TSP back in 1997, and so far as I know, he has never even attempted a discussion in general that focuses on the TSP. Can you do better?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Can you first explain to me why (even where you could) better solving a Traveling Salesman Problem proves that a GA/EA is a better model of intelligence than a cognitive model that has long been used to explain how intelligence works?

Your comparison is identical to one that concludes a pocket calculator (or software) is far more intelligent than a human brain, because it is far superior for solving hard math problems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Huh?

Look at your claim. In what sense does your model put "EA's (sic) and GA's (sic) to shame"? That's the relevant point. And I need not refer to comparisons to human brains to ask you to support your claim. Recall the question that you offered the quoted statement as an answer to: "Will you describe exactly how the so-called "theory" is "useful", especially "scientifically"?" The claim you put on the table was one of relative utility, not philosophy of cognition.

It appears that my suspicion that you haven't done the work that would ground your claim is spot-on.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 07 2012,02:22

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,02:05)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,01:39)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,00:48)
Gary:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To make that claim stick, you'd have to have done a broad survey of capabilities of evolutionary computation instances and made specific comparisons demonstrating the superiority of your approach. I doubt that this has happened. You could dispel that by showing your work. Let's start with your comparison of your program and that of < Eureqa >. Please show us how your program does symbolic regression better than Eureqa. And then PyEvolve. And DEAP. And PyGP. Your claim implies that you've already taken this step, so all I'm asking for is that you show us what you must already have in hand.

Others have already asked for a similar comparison concerning the TSP. I'd be interested in that, too. I asked Bill Dembski to make his criticism of GAs stick when considering the TSP back in 1997, and so far as I know, he has never even attempted a discussion in general that focuses on the TSP. Can you do better?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Can you first explain to me why (even where you could) better solving a Traveling Salesman Problem proves that a GA/EA is a better model of intelligence than a cognitive model that has long been used to explain how intelligence works?

Your comparison is identical to one that concludes a pocket calculator (or software) is far more intelligent than a human brain, because it is far superior for solving hard math problems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Huh?

Look at your claim. In what sense does your model put "EA's (sic) and GA's (sic) to shame"? That's the relevant point. And I need not refer to comparisons to human brains to ask you to support your claim. Recall the question that you offered the quoted statement as an answer to: "Will you describe exactly how the so-called "theory" is "useful", especially "scientifically"?" The claim you put on the table was one of relative utility, not philosophy of cognition.

It appears that my suspicion that you haven't done the work that would ground your claim is spot-on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have been claiming that it is a better model of reality where living things (from molecular intelligence on up to human intelligence) have intelligence that make their own choices that over long periods of time can develop into new species.

You are now demanding an unfair comparison so that you can say that your pocket calculator is a superior model of intelligence, while also suggesting that it better explains how intelligent causation works.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 07 2012,02:28

I HAS DEFEATED EVOLUTIONISM!

< TAKE THAT DARWINISTS >

Gary, it's all bluster, no substance from you. You are a twat, and I doubt even you are buying that shoite you're peddling.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 07 2012,02:31

Also Gary, those 'baby toys' that are EAs and GAs can and do solve real world problems, unlike your theory hypothesis code.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 07 2012,02:42

I Don't Know about others in the audience who just got a good punch in the head from that last couple/few replies, but I sure need this one right now...


< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....lYB3iSM >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 07 2012,04:14

There are a number of strategies involved in solving the TSP, of which intelligence certainly is one.

For example, animals who cache food have been shown to compute a near-optimal TSP route between each cache.

When people are asked to solve a TSP by instinct they realise  certain attributes of a path will not be optimal. For example, paths that cross or paths criss crossing the "interior" of the network will (typically) be non-optimal and without any experience of this people perform much better then random search by default.

< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed.....1505612 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The relation between perceptual organization and the process of solving visually presented TSPs is briefly discussed, as is the potential of optimization for providing a conceptual framework for the study of intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, Gary, your comparison fails. The difference between a pocket calculator and an intelligence solving the TSP is measured in lifetimes of universes. And plenty of other people think there is a relationship between solving the TSP and intelligence. Except you, of course. No doubt every potential "test" that comes your way will be dismissed in a similar way.

If your intelligence is nothing more then a pocket calculator it'll fail to solve any complex TSP by brute force. If it's more then that I expect a better result then a pocket calculator.

If it's intelligent, as you claim, that intelligence can be measured by it's ability to solve the TSP without having to brute force it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are now demanding an unfair comparison so that you can say that your pocket calculator is a superior model of intelligence, while also suggesting that it better explains how intelligent causation works.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Which is funny because it was also you who said:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, the situation seems to be that the "baby toys" you disparage can do something (solve the TSP and find near or optimum solutions) that your "intelligence" cannot. So in what way is your intelligence putting GA's to shame if it can't actually do what those GA's do?

And in case you are not aware (you are not) the TSP "problem" is just a reflection of a deeper reality:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Besides being a "polytope" of a difficult combinatorial optimization problem from a complexity theory point of view, there are important cases of practical problems that can be formulated as TSP problems and many other problems are generalizations of this problem.  Besides the drilling of printed circuits boards described above, problems having the TSP structure occur in the analysis of the structure of crystals, (Bland and Shallcross, 1987), the overhauling of gas turbine engines (Pante, Lowe and Chandrasekaran, 1987), in material handling in a warehouse (Ratliff and Rosenthal, 1981), in cutting stock problems, (Garfinkel, 1977), the clustering of data arrays, (Lenstra and Rinooy Kan, 1975), the sequencing of jobs on a single machine (Gilmore and Gomory, 1964) and the assignment of routes for planes of a specified fleet (Boland, Jones, and Nemhauser, 1994). Related variations on the traveling salesman problem include the resource constrained traveling salesman problem which has applications in scheduling with an aggregate deadline (Pekny and Miller, 1990). This paper also shows how the prize collecting traveling salesman problem (Balas, 1989) and the orienteering problem (Golden, Levy and Vohra, 1987) are special cases of the resource constrained TSP. Most importantly, the traveling salesman problem often comes up as a subproblem in more complex combinatorial problems, the best known and important one of which is the vehicle routing problem, that is, the problem of determining for a fleet of vehicles which customers should be served by each vehicle and in what order each vehicle should visit the customers assigned to it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If your "intelligence" can indeed make GA's that solve the TSP look like baby toys then you will be RICH overnight. Simply optimising the delivery route for a courier company can save many $$.

So, Gary, your move.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 07 2012,05:39

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 07 2012,04:14)
There are a number of strategies involved in solving the TSP, of which intelligence certainly is one.

For example, animals who cache food have been shown to compute a near-optimal TSP route between each cache.

When people are asked to solve a TSP by instinct they realise  certain attributes of a path will not be optimal. For example, paths that cross or paths criss crossing the "interior" of the network will (typically) be non-optimal and without any experience of this people perform much better then random search by default.

< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed.....1505612 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The relation between perceptual organization and the process of solving visually presented TSPs is briefly discussed, as is the potential of optimization for providing a conceptual framework for the study of intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, Gary, your comparison fails. The difference between a pocket calculator and an intelligence solving the TSP is measured in lifetimes of universes. And plenty of other people think there is a relationship between solving the TSP and intelligence. Except you, of course. No doubt every potential "test" that comes your way will be dismissed in a similar way.

If your intelligence is nothing more then a pocket calculator it'll fail to solve any complex TSP by brute force. If it's more then that I expect a better result then a pocket calculator.

If it's intelligent, as you claim, that intelligence can be measured by it's ability to solve the TSP without having to brute force it.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are now demanding an unfair comparison so that you can say that your pocket calculator is a superior model of intelligence, while also suggesting that it better explains how intelligent causation works.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Which is funny because it was also you who said:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, the situation seems to be that the "baby toys" you disparage can do something (solve the TSP and find near or optimum solutions) that your "intelligence" cannot. So in what way is your intelligence putting GA's to shame if it can't actually do what those GA's do?

And in case you are not aware (you are not) the TSP "problem" is just a reflection of a deeper reality:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Besides being a "polytope" of a difficult combinatorial optimization problem from a complexity theory point of view, there are important cases of practical problems that can be formulated as TSP problems and many other problems are generalizations of this problem.  Besides the drilling of printed circuits boards described above, problems having the TSP structure occur in the analysis of the structure of crystals, (Bland and Shallcross, 1987), the overhauling of gas turbine engines (Pante, Lowe and Chandrasekaran, 1987), in material handling in a warehouse (Ratliff and Rosenthal, 1981), in cutting stock problems, (Garfinkel, 1977), the clustering of data arrays, (Lenstra and Rinooy Kan, 1975), the sequencing of jobs on a single machine (Gilmore and Gomory, 1964) and the assignment of routes for planes of a specified fleet (Boland, Jones, and Nemhauser, 1994). Related variations on the traveling salesman problem include the resource constrained traveling salesman problem which has applications in scheduling with an aggregate deadline (Pekny and Miller, 1990). This paper also shows how the prize collecting traveling salesman problem (Balas, 1989) and the orienteering problem (Golden, Levy and Vohra, 1987) are special cases of the resource constrained TSP. Most importantly, the traveling salesman problem often comes up as a subproblem in more complex combinatorial problems, the best known and important one of which is the vehicle routing problem, that is, the problem of determining for a fleet of vehicles which customers should be served by each vehicle and in what order each vehicle should visit the customers assigned to it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If your "intelligence" can indeed make GA's that solve the TSP look like baby toys then you will be RICH overnight. Simply optimising the delivery route for a courier company can save many $$.

So, Gary, your move.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not a bad response, but you are also comparing algorithms that are not for modeling intelligence to one that is the starting point for modeling any intelligence, as well as intelligent causation events, and can develop into new species just as in reality.  In fact, that's what you end up with where you make a molecule by molecule model a cell, or neuron by neuron model of a human brain.

I have no doubt that it would easily solve the Traveling Salesman Problem.  But I do not have the time and resources for the hundreds of things I can only wish I could afford and be able to do.  And it's certainly not my fault that scientific resources are only allowed to be used to stop me from succeeding because of my work so easily meeting the requirements of the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 07 2012,06:00

More excuses Gary? I'm not surprised.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not a bad response, but you are also comparing algorithms that are not for modeling intelligence to one that is the starting point for modeling any intelligence, as well as intelligent causation events, and can develop into new species just as in reality.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So model an intelligence that can solve the TSP! Or model one that develops into one that can solve the TSP! Or make ability to solve the TSP a factor in your model! Excuse after excuse after excuse....

Ants can do it!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact, that's what you end up with where you make a molecule by molecule model a cell, or neuron by neuron model of a human brain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really? And you've done that have you? I don't think so.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have no doubt that it would easily solve the Traveling Salesman Problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



On what basis? What similar problems has your 'intelligence' solved? If you can't name any then on what basis are you making this claim?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I do not have the time and resources for the hundreds of things I can only wish I could afford and be able to do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet you seem to have the time and resources to go around the internet, on forum after forum, posting exactly the same things and saying exactly the same things when asked to support your claims.

The problem you have Gary is that if you were to apply your "intelligence" to the TSP that would be all the vindication that your "theory" needs.

Everybody knows about the TSP.
Everybody knows what it takes to solve the TSP.
There are many prizes on offer for new solutions to the TSP (not least unlimited wealth).

If you don't see that applying some of your time to an example that everybody can appreciate then that's your lose.

If you prefer to spend your time finding a new forum where nobody has heard of you you can start all over again?

Spend a couple more years getting nowhere eh?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And it's certainly not my fault that scientific resources are only allowed to be used to stop me from succeeding because of my work so easily meeting the requirements of the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The only person stopping you is you.

There is no reason at all you could not apply your simulation to the TSP. Set up the energy sources so that they create a grid and cause energy to be expended moving around that grid.

If your "intelligence" is anything other then a mirage, it'll work it out.

Ants do!

So Gary, come up with excuse after excuse after excuse if that makes you feel better.

But the fact remains that your name would be heard worldwide if you intelligence can indeed solve the TSP and do it with fewer resources then anything currently available.

So whatever you might think about the applicability of my challenge to your model is irrelevant. If you did solve the TSP in a novel way you'd be rich overnight and then would have the money to spend succeeding with your theory.

But we all know the reason you won't do it. You already know it can't. So it's out with any excuse at all to cover that up.

So, Gary, if your intelligence can't do this then what *can* it do? Anything at all? Seems you have not reached the level of "Ant" yet if you can't solve the TSP.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 07 2012,06:12

Don't you get it yet Gary?

Nobody is interested in disparaging your religion.
Nobody is trying to suppress your work.
Nobody is trying to stop you.

All I'm asking you to do is demonstrate your intelligence in action.

Propose a problem.
Solve that problem.
Demonstrate that your intelligence has solved that problem.
Demonstrate why that solution is non-trivial.

If you don't like the TSP (which is odd from what I've seen of your model it's perfectly suited) then choose your own.

Or you can just carry on whining, it's up to you.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 07 2012,06:20

Anyway, enough.

If you choose to respond with anything other then a whiny set of excuses as to why you can't demonstrate your claims then I'll probably respond also.

Other then that, best of luck! You'll need it....
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 07 2012,06:45

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 07 2012,10:31)
Also Gary, those 'baby toys' that are EAs and GAs can and do solve real world problems, unlike your theory hypothesis code.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


code paint shop illustration of a rudimentary state machine.

Even calling it vaporware when it looks vapid, might be too much.

GG is missing a few kangaroos in the top paddock.

G in G out.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 07 2012,07:01

Gary:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have no doubt that it would easily solve the Traveling Salesman Problem.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You do realize, don't you, that you just claimed that P=NP?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 07 2012,07:50

Gary,

Let me know when you
1) decide to comment, learn, and understand why you are mistaken about natural selection
2) decide to explain and cite references to your claim about the Cambrian having an exponential increase in species
3) start constructing graphs at better than a elementary school level
4) learn something about the people you are morally opposed to
5) learn that one who makes claims has the responsibility for supporting those claims

or anything else actually relevant to your work.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 07 2012,08:05

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,07:01)
Gary:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have no doubt that it would easily solve the Traveling Salesman Problem.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You do realize, don't you, that you just claimed that P=NP?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yeah, and that the proof that P=NP is implicit in your existing code?
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 07 2012,08:27

If only the IDiots at UD and the DI had the guts to step out of their sanctuaries and come here and state their opinions on Gary's "theory". It would be interesting to see what they think of it.

Gary, are you familiar with uprightbiped's 'semiotic' argument for ID? If so, how does it relate to your "theory", if at all? I don't remember if you've been asked this already but have you thought of posting a link to your "theory" on UD to see what they think of it?


Posted by: damitall on Nov. 07 2012,15:11

I can only get that Giggles thinks that;

1. Everything of which life is made, from molecules on up, is intelligent.
2. Therefore, all life intelligently designed itself
3. But without natural selection, no sir!

I don't think he's ever postulated an external intelligent agent, but who knows what's hidden in the crawling mess that is Giggles Gaulin's idea of the English language?

I've marked very many student exam and test scripts. I've never seen anything quite so incoherent as Giggles's efforts. Still, his spelling is nearly impeccable.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 07 2012,17:22

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 07 2012,08:27)
If only the IDiots at UD and the DI had the guts to step out of their sanctuaries and come here and state their opinions on Gary's "theory". It would be interesting to see what they think of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I agree.  

 
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 07 2012,08:27)
Gary, are you familiar with uprightbiped's 'semiotic' argument for ID?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No.  Never heard of it before.

 
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 07 2012,08:27)
If so, how does it relate to your "theory", if at all?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I searched for info.  My opinion is that it is another argument for such a theory being possible, but at this point in time that has already been answered by the theory being possible.  I think they are more or less arguing that there is functional anarchy at work (as opposed to lucky accidents) as in part explained here:

< http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehl....ome.htm >

 
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 07 2012,08:27)
I don't remember if you've been asked this already but have you thought of posting a link to your "theory" on UD to see what they think of it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought about it.  But since I only have time for less than 1% of all that I wish I could finish, all the other projects took priority.  And honestly, I would rather not get caged-up in the UD sanctuary.  Nor does that help the Theory of Intelligent Design get around.  I would rather be here, than there.  But as I earlier mentioned I email Robert Crowther, Director of Communications at the Discovery Institute whenever there is a major development.  It's a quick way to stay in contact
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 07 2012,17:53

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,08:05)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,07:01)
Gary:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have no doubt that it would easily solve the Traveling Salesman Problem.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You do realize, don't you, that you just claimed that P=NP?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yeah, and that the proof that P=NP is implicit in your existing code?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In the glass window experiment, not being able to solve the Traveling Salesman Problem is expected in a model of an insect brain such as a fly.  It is supposed to keep bashing into the transparent barrier until it knocks itself senseless, even though there is a nearby exit somewhere else.  

Being able to quickly find the dark exit is not what happens in reality.  Enough sensory/memory/subsystems must be added to make it the equivalent of a mammal type brain.  In humans we know there is a glass window and don't keep bashing into it to get outside, and will right away look for another way out even though they cannot see light/food through it.  But a fly is not expected to find then wait by the door for someone to open it for them.

As I said before, this is for modeling reality, not passing tests that do not even require intelligence to do well at.  An optimal solution can be easily enough calculated with a math formula that gets them out right away, but that is not reality, and only leads to your being easily fooled by unrealistic nonsense.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 07 2012,18:03

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,17:53)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,08:05)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,07:01)
Gary:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have no doubt that it would easily solve the Traveling Salesman Problem.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You do realize, don't you, that you just claimed that P=NP?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yeah, and that the proof that P=NP is implicit in your existing code?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In the glass window experiment, not being able to solve the Traveling Salesman Problem is expected in a model of an insect brain such as a fly.  It is supposed to keep bashing into the transparent barrier until it knocks itself senseless, even though there is a nearby exit somewhere else.  

Being able to quickly find the dark exit is not what happens in reality.  Enough sensory/memory/subsystems must be added to make it the equivalent of a mammal type brain.  In humans we know there is a glass window and don't keep bashing into it to get outside, and will right away look for another way out even though they cannot see light/food through it.  But a fly is not expected to find then wait by the door for someone to open it for them.

As I said before, this is for modeling reality, not passing tests that do not even require intelligence to do well at.  An optimal solution can be easily enough calculated with a math formula that gets them out right away, but that is not reality, and only leads to your being easily fooled by unrealistic nonsense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Come on, Gary. Just admit that you don't know the least thing about computational complexity theory and you won't have to make up gibberish like that. Hint: it helps if the gibberish at least has some keywords from the topic at hand. Yours doesn't.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 07 2012,18:17

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,16:03)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,17:53)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,08:05)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,07:01)
Gary:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have no doubt that it would easily solve the Traveling Salesman Problem.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You do realize, don't you, that you just claimed that P=NP?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yeah, and that the proof that P=NP is implicit in your existing code?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In the glass window experiment, not being able to solve the Traveling Salesman Problem is expected in a model of an insect brain such as a fly.  It is supposed to keep bashing into the transparent barrier until it knocks itself senseless, even though there is a nearby exit somewhere else.  

Being able to quickly find the dark exit is not what happens in reality.  Enough sensory/memory/subsystems must be added to make it the equivalent of a mammal type brain.  In humans we know there is a glass window and don't keep bashing into it to get outside, and will right away look for another way out even though they cannot see light/food through it.  But a fly is not expected to find then wait by the door for someone to open it for them.

As I said before, this is for modeling reality, not passing tests that do not even require intelligence to do well at.  An optimal solution can be easily enough calculated with a math formula that gets them out right away, but that is not reality, and only leads to your being easily fooled by unrealistic nonsense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Come on, Gary. Just admit that you don't know the least thing about computational complexity theory and you won't have to make up gibberish like that. Hint: it helps if the gibberish at least has some keywords from the topic at hand. Yours doesn't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
An optimal solution can be easily enough calculated with a math formula
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


made me wonder if he's even heard of the TSP.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 07 2012,18:49

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,18:03)
Come on, Gary. Just admit that you don't know the least thing about computational complexity theory and you won't have to make up gibberish like that. Hint: it helps if the gibberish at least has some keywords from the topic at hand. Yours doesn't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a collection of AI techniques, many of which I have already modeled/tested.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...._theory >

That is all well and good for someone new to AI but it is not "cognitive science".

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....science >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 07 2012,19:05

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,18:49)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,18:03)
Come on, Gary. Just admit that you don't know the least thing about computational complexity theory and you won't have to make up gibberish like that. Hint: it helps if the gibberish at least has some keywords from the topic at hand. Yours doesn't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a collection of AI techniques, many of which I have already modeled/tested.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._theory >

That is all well and good for someone new to AI but it is not "cognitive science".

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......science >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL

Gary, you once again managed to link to a Wikipedia article that you obviously failed to understand. If there is anything that computational complexity theory definitely isn't, that would be "a collection of AI techniques". The word "artificial" is notable by its absence from the linked article on computational complexity theory. Thanks for providing confirmation of my conjecture, though.

And I already explained why cognitive science is irrelevant to our particular discussion here, so linking to its Wikipedia article is rather sad and pathetic behavior on your part.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 07 2012,19:10

A good question to ask right now would be:  Is the common AI technique called an "expert system" actually Intelligent?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 07 2012,19:14

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:10)
A good question to ask right now would be:  Is the common AI technique called an "expert system" actually Intelligent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A more apropos question is why is Gary desperately trying to change the topic of discussion?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 07 2012,19:18

Gary - worst bluffer since Joe G.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 07 2012,19:26

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,19:14)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:10)
A good question to ask right now would be:  Is the common AI technique called an "expert system" actually Intelligent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A more apropos question is why is Gary desperately trying to change the topic of discussion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You would simply rather discuss AI than to discuss what is truly relevant to the Theory of Intelligent Design.

You are essentially putting plastic artificial flowers under the microscope in order to support your biological conclusions.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 07 2012,19:31

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:26)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,19:14)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:10)
A good question to ask right now would be:  Is the common AI technique called an "expert system" actually Intelligent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A more apropos question is why is Gary desperately trying to change the topic of discussion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You would simply rather discuss AI than to discuss what is truly relevant to the Theory of Intelligent Design.

You are essentially putting plastic artificial flowers under the microscope in order to support your biological conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank goodness Gary (the arbiter of true design theory ® [in VB] ) is here to tell us what's important. By redefining science and then sprinkling it in his word salad he's got a 'theory' that neither predicts nor explains anything. Well done sir! Templeton grant for you!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 07 2012,19:36

Gary, so now we add complexity to the list of things you have no clue on?

Just out of curiosity, have you researched your paper's failure on the concept of natural selection, the Cambrian explosion and the rather inexplicable graphs?

One would think that things in one's life's work that are wrong would be high on the discussion topic list.

Do you have a definition of "intelligence"?  If so, what is it?  No, I'm NOT going to troll through your paper for it.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 07 2012,19:38

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 07 2012,19:31)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:26)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,19:14)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:10)
A good question to ask right now would be:  Is the common AI technique called an "expert system" actually Intelligent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A more apropos question is why is Gary desperately trying to change the topic of discussion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You would simply rather discuss AI than to discuss what is truly relevant to the Theory of Intelligent Design.

You are essentially putting plastic artificial flowers under the microscope in order to support your biological conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank goodness Gary (the arbiter of true design theory ® [in VB] ) is here to tell us what's important. By redefining science and then sprinkling it in his word salad he's got a 'theory' that neither predicts nor explains anything. Well done sir! Templeton grant for you!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've been the beneficiary of a Templeton grant, and the paper on the evolution of effective methods in movement is one result from that.

I don't think that Gary is close to getting a Templeton grant.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 07 2012,19:45

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:26)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,19:14)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:10)
A good question to ask right now would be:  Is the common AI technique called an "expert system" actually Intelligent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A more apropos question is why is Gary desperately trying to change the topic of discussion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You would simply rather discuss AI than to discuss what is truly relevant to the Theory of Intelligent Design.

You are essentially putting plastic artificial flowers under the microscope in order to support your biological conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have been trying to narrow the discussion to a couple of very specific claims that you have made. Given that you can't back those up, you apparently think that you should be given a pass on making false claims because, hey, there are other things that you have also been interested in.

Part of how science has progressed has been through problem decomposition. Keeping focus on a small, resolvable issue enables removing error from larger-scale systems.

Gary's approach is the inverse: protect and cherish errors that could be identified and resolved at the small scale by asserting some sort of holistic property of his work. It makes no rational sense.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 07 2012,19:52

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,19:38)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 07 2012,19:31)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:26)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,19:14)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:10)
A good question to ask right now would be:  Is the common AI technique called an "expert system" actually Intelligent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A more apropos question is why is Gary desperately trying to change the topic of discussion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You would simply rather discuss AI than to discuss what is truly relevant to the Theory of Intelligent Design.

You are essentially putting plastic artificial flowers under the microscope in order to support your biological conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank goodness Gary (the arbiter of true design theory ® [in VB] ) is here to tell us what's important. By redefining science and then sprinkling it in his word salad he's got a 'theory' that neither predicts nor explains anything. Well done sir! Templeton grant for you!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've been the beneficiary of a Templeton grant, and the paper on the evolution of effective methods in movement is one result from that.

I don't think that Gary is close to getting a Templeton grant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Templeton Foundation is another which gave into political pressures, and now only fund political efforts to destroy this new area of scientific research.

But back to the subject at hand.  Here is a paper that uses "computational complexity theory" to test the performance an "expert system":

< http://bmir.stanford.edu/file_as....246.pdf >

Question still remains, of whether an AI expert system that has the knowledge of hundreds of physicians in it is actually "intelligent".  And for some weird reason you refuse to even answer.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 07 2012,20:11

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:52)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,19:38)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 07 2012,19:31)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:26)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,19:14)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:10)
A good question to ask right now would be:  Is the common AI technique called an "expert system" actually Intelligent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A more apropos question is why is Gary desperately trying to change the topic of discussion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You would simply rather discuss AI than to discuss what is truly relevant to the Theory of Intelligent Design.

You are essentially putting plastic artificial flowers under the microscope in order to support your biological conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank goodness Gary (the arbiter of true design theory ® [in VB] ) is here to tell us what's important. By redefining science and then sprinkling it in his word salad he's got a 'theory' that neither predicts nor explains anything. Well done sir! Templeton grant for you!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've been the beneficiary of a Templeton grant, and the paper on the evolution of effective methods in movement is one result from that.

I don't think that Gary is close to getting a Templeton grant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Templeton Foundation is another which gave into political pressures, and now only fund political efforts to destroy this new area of scientific research.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sour grapes, apparently.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But back to the subject at hand.  Here is a paper that uses "computational complexity theory" to test the performance an "expert system":

< http://bmir.stanford.edu/file_as....246.pdf >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's OK, Gary; we've taken the point that you don't know the subject. You can stop adding further clueless comments to hammer that point home.

Yes, computational complexity theory is utilized in assessing performance of artificial intelligence systems and other approaches to problem optimization, too. But that no more establishes the notion that computational complexity theory is itself a collection of artificial intelligence techniques than the fact that rulers get used in dressmaking means that fashion design is a part of the physics of measurement. Swing and a miss, Gary.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Question still remains, of whether an AI expert system that has the knowledge of hundreds of physicians in it is actually "intelligent".  And for some weird reason you refuse to even answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because it has nothing to do with the discussion I'm trying to have? That a response would be rewarding a blatant attempt at digression away from the point? That would be *so* weird, wouldn't it?
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 07 2012,20:36

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:11)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Question still remains, of whether an AI expert system that has the knowledge of hundreds of physicians in it is actually "intelligent".  And for some weird reason you refuse to even answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because it has nothing to do with the discussion I'm trying to have? That a response would be rewarding a blatant attempt at digression away from the point? That would be *so* weird, wouldn't it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have been claiming that computational complexity theory which is applied to numerous AI techniques is a good test of whether something is actually intelligent or not.  

Your implied answer is that expert systems with large databases are so intelligent they far surpass the intelligence of any human who has ever lived.

My answer was "that is not reality, and only leads to your being easily fooled by unrealistic nonsense."
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 07 2012,20:48

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,20:36)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:11)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Question still remains, of whether an AI expert system that has the knowledge of hundreds of physicians in it is actually "intelligent".  And for some weird reason you refuse to even answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because it has nothing to do with the discussion I'm trying to have? That a response would be rewarding a blatant attempt at digression away from the point? That would be *so* weird, wouldn't it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have been claiming that computational complexity theory which is applied to numerous AI techniques is a good test of whether something is actually intelligent or not.  

Your implied answer is that expert systems with large databases are so intelligent they far surpass the intelligence of any human who has ever lived.

My answer was "that is not reality, and only leads to your being easily fooled by unrealistic nonsense."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've said no such thing, Gary. If I had, you could demonstrate that with a quote of me saying that, which you will not manage because it doesn't exist. You do no better trying to read what I say than what Wikipedia says, apparently.

What I said was that your claim that your program could solve the TSP was a strong claim about *the* primary unresolved issue in computational complexity theory. That's what the stuff about P=NP was about, and if you knew diddly about computer science as a science, you would have understood that right off the bat. You didn't understood that, apparently still don't understand that, and still have no clue what is actually the point of the discussion. Hint: it isn't about some test for "intelligence". Hint: it is a far more basic issue in computer science.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 07 2012,21:02

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2012,19:36)
Gary, so now we add complexity to the list of things you have no clue on?

Just out of curiosity, have you researched your paper's failure on the concept of natural selection, the Cambrian explosion and the rather inexplicable graphs?

One would think that things in one's life's work that are wrong would be high on the discussion topic list.

Do you have a definition of "intelligence"?  If so, what is it?  No, I'm NOT going to troll through your paper for it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is the operational definition for intelligence, from the Introduction:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Intelligence is here operationally defined by how it works, as an autonomous sensory-feedback (confidence) guided sensory addressed memory system that through trial-and-error learns new successful actions to be taken in response to environmental conditions.  In addition to something to CONTROL and MEMORY there must be one or more CONFIDENCE levels gauging failure or success of its motor actions towards reaching the goal and a way to GUESS motor actions when a learned response does not yet exist but it must try something.  A good-guess is based upon existing knowledge.  A random-guess is the last resort and only has to be "random" to the intelligence.  For example where one must think up "random numbers" for another to guess they may use their phone number, which the other person does not know so to them they are indeed a random string of numbers.  What is most important for something to be "random" is that the intelligence perceives it as such.

Confidence gauges whether it is getting closer to its goal or not, if not then Guess is taken by changing direction to produce tumble/guess where to next go. In a most simple chemotaxis system Guess and Motor are combined, are the molecules that act as a switch to change motor direction where only a single memory location is required, instead of two as shown here that takes the same concept to self-learning as in the human brain and other intelligent living things where Motors (muscles) are separate from the Guess mechanism requiring two memory locations with In0/Out0 a 4 state (0-3) or more analog to recall confidence level that increases each time the action worked, decreases when it failed then upon reaching 0 produces a guess.  Like us we know when we need to take a guess or have an action response we are confident will work.  And as when first born, almost everything is a new experience. No memory at all of what to do is then sensed by Out0 being 0 which likewise produces a guess.  What works is stored with increasing confidence, for as long as it keeps working, but confidence level does not need to increase past 3 for a good model. In bacteria the interoceptive sensors would simply be metabolic pathway molecules reporting motor condition back to the sensory end of the system to provide time delay that through Confidence being restored by that action switches motor back to swimming after tumble has been completed.

There should always be an easily recognizable circuit where each part works with others in a certain way.  This includes motors/muscles where there are expected to be two connections to the memory/brain.  The input connects to the data action outputs of a Random Access Memory controlling it.  The output is a sensory feedback signal to RAM addressing that adds (usually subconscious) awareness of the muscle action.  This sensory output can be from other sensors not directly connected to, such as touch sensors on skin that “feel” muscles moving or eye sensing travel direction.  Without at least indirect sensory feedback of motor actions addressing RAM the system has no way to know whether the motor has in turn produced the expected action, or not.

Although not a circuit requirement (as in the four above) there should be the production of regular detectable synchronized cycles, as the algorithm/system keeps repeating the one thought at a time process.  Where these cycles are no longer present then the intelligence is nonfunctional.

Where a system is missing one or more requirements we have a system that may appear to be intelligent but would only qualify as a protointelligent behavior.  This is true where the sensor(s) connect directly to the motors in a way that keeps the system on course, but does not learn how to control itself.  There must be a memory system between sensors and motors being controlled.  An example so simple it is almost cheating is the E.coli chemotaxis system where chemoreceptors address a single memory location that increases or decreases according to the amount of chemical being sensed, and when it is going the wrong way tumbles to try another direction.

Being self-learning, intelligence will produce the next emergent level of intelligence when it learns how to achieve it.  Large numbers of rudimentary intelligences are predicted to have a tendency to spontaneously produce easily detectable and measurable emergent intelligence at the next level.  No computer code is needed, entities learn how to on their own.  Demonstrating this intelligent cause/causation would require many intelligent entities with rudimentary intelligence which self-assemble (at higher complexity is also called self-organize) to produce an emergent intelligence, much the same way a molecular genome produces a living cell, or living cells produced us.

< http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is more detail in following sections, but that's a summary.  Not needing a "natural selection" variable is the result of not needing a 1200+ year old generalization.  This is a cognitive theory, that explains how intelligence works, through time...
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 07 2012,21:02

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,17:22)

   
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 07 2012,08:27)
I don't remember if you've been asked this already but have you thought of posting a link to your "theory" on UD to see what they think of it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought about it.  But since I only have time for less than 1% of all that I wish I could finish, all the other projects took priority.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why then waste your (and our) time here? I don't have the impression that you can gain anything here (besides publically selfing)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 And honestly, I would rather not get caged-up in the UD sanctuary.  Nor does that help the Theory of Intelligent Design get around.  I would rather be here, than there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You actually miss world class programmers. E.g. GilDodgen. Some over there even have contacts to former NASA programmers. In addition, I think that the discussion here gets redundant and that the guys over there may have better questions for you. I am quite willing to watch the discussion over there.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 But as I earlier mentioned I email Robert Crowther, Director of Communications at the Discovery Institute whenever there is a major development.  It's a quick way to stay in contact
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Acoording to DI's web pages

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Robert Crowther holds a BA in Journalism with an emphasis in public affairs and twenty years experience as a journalist, publisher, and brand marketing and media relations specialist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Do you think that he is qualified to follow your demanding thoughts? Actually, how many major developments did you report to him? How many times did he reply? And what did he actually have to say regarding your work? In addition, how did Caroline Crocker respond? You mentioned before that there were no complaints from DI folks but  did their replies go beyond that? Did they make comments or suggestions that helped you in one or another way? If so, what did they contribute and how did it help you?
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 07 2012,21:19

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:48)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,20:36)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:11)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Question still remains, of whether an AI expert system that has the knowledge of hundreds of physicians in it is actually "intelligent".  And for some weird reason you refuse to even answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because it has nothing to do with the discussion I'm trying to have? That a response would be rewarding a blatant attempt at digression away from the point? That would be *so* weird, wouldn't it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have been claiming that computational complexity theory which is applied to numerous AI techniques is a good test of whether something is actually intelligent or not.  

Your implied answer is that expert systems with large databases are so intelligent they far surpass the intelligence of any human who has ever lived.

My answer was "that is not reality, and only leads to your being easily fooled by unrealistic nonsense."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've said no such thing, Gary. If I had, you could demonstrate that with a quote of me saying that, which you will not manage because it doesn't exist. You do no better trying to read what I say than what Wikipedia says, apparently.

What I said was that your claim that your program could solve the TSP was a strong claim about *the* primary unresolved issue in computational complexity theory. That's what the stuff about P=NP was about, and if you knew diddly about computer science as a science, you would have understood that right off the bat. You didn't understood that, apparently still don't understand that, and still have no clue what is actually the point of the discussion. Hint: it isn't about some test for "intelligence". Hint: it is a far more basic issue in computer science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is where you started on the tangent of expecting this intelligence model to outperform all other models, regardless of their being intelligent or not:

 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,00:48)
Gary:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To make that claim stick, you'd have to have done a broad survey of capabilities of evolutionary computation instances and made specific comparisons demonstrating the superiority of your approach. I doubt that this has happened. You could dispel that by showing your work. Let's start with your comparison of your program and that of < Eureqa >. Please show us how your program does symbolic regression better than Eureqa. And then PyEvolve. And DEAP. And PyGP. Your claim implies that you've already taken this step, so all I'm asking for is that you show us what you must already have in hand.

Others have already asked for a similar comparison concerning the TSP. I'd be interested in that, too. I asked Bill Dembski to make his criticism of GAs stick when considering the TSP back in 1997, and so far as I know, he has never even attempted a discussion in general that focuses on the TSP. Can you do better?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A fly has more intelligence than an unintelligent expert system and such, yet your operational definition for intelligence apparently requires a fly to be more intelligent than an experienced human physician.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 07 2012,21:32

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,21:19)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:48)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,20:36)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:11)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Question still remains, of whether an AI expert system that has the knowledge of hundreds of physicians in it is actually "intelligent".  And for some weird reason you refuse to even answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because it has nothing to do with the discussion I'm trying to have? That a response would be rewarding a blatant attempt at digression away from the point? That would be *so* weird, wouldn't it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have been claiming that computational complexity theory which is applied to numerous AI techniques is a good test of whether something is actually intelligent or not.  

Your implied answer is that expert systems with large databases are so intelligent they far surpass the intelligence of any human who has ever lived.

My answer was "that is not reality, and only leads to your being easily fooled by unrealistic nonsense."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've said no such thing, Gary. If I had, you could demonstrate that with a quote of me saying that, which you will not manage because it doesn't exist. You do no better trying to read what I say than what Wikipedia says, apparently.

What I said was that your claim that your program could solve the TSP was a strong claim about *the* primary unresolved issue in computational complexity theory. That's what the stuff about P=NP was about, and if you knew diddly about computer science as a science, you would have understood that right off the bat. You didn't understood that, apparently still don't understand that, and still have no clue what is actually the point of the discussion. Hint: it isn't about some test for "intelligence". Hint: it is a far more basic issue in computer science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is where you started on the tangent of expecting this intelligence model to outperform all other models, regardless of their being intelligent or not:

   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,00:48)
Gary:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To make that claim stick, you'd have to have done a broad survey of capabilities of evolutionary computation instances and made specific comparisons demonstrating the superiority of your approach. I doubt that this has happened. You could dispel that by showing your work. Let's start with your comparison of your program and that of < Eureqa >. Please show us how your program does symbolic regression better than Eureqa. And then PyEvolve. And DEAP. And PyGP. Your claim implies that you've already taken this step, so all I'm asking for is that you show us what you must already have in hand.

Others have already asked for a similar comparison concerning the TSP. I'd be interested in that, too. I asked Bill Dembski to make his criticism of GAs stick when considering the TSP back in 1997, and so far as I know, he has never even attempted a discussion in general that focuses on the TSP. Can you do better?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A fly has more intelligence than an unintelligent expert system and such, yet your operational definition for intelligence apparently requires a fly to be more intelligent than an experienced human physician.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, you have quoted me.

But you haven't quoted me saying anything like what you claimed I said, so I have no clue why you even bothered making that post.

And that last bit... Are you not bright enough to parse a statement that you have not correctly understood what I was saying, since you persist in attributing to me stances I've never taken?
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 07 2012,21:54

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 07 2012,21:02)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,17:22)

         
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 07 2012,08:27)
I don't remember if you've been asked this already but have you thought of posting a link to your "theory" on UD to see what they think of it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought about it.  But since I only have time for less than 1% of all that I wish I could finish, all the other projects took priority.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why then waste your (and our) time here? I don't have the impression that you can gain anything here (besides publically selfing)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Like in the old days I wander the World (Wide Web) teaching and discussing my theory.  But the internet has made it possible to get far less sand in our shoes while traveling from place to place, even when traveling at nearly the speed of light.

   
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 07 2012,21:02)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 And honestly, I would rather not get caged-up in the UD sanctuary.  Nor does that help the Theory of Intelligent Design get around.  I would rather be here, than there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You actually miss world class programmers. E.g. GilDodgen. Some over there even have contacts to former NASA programmers. In addition, I think that the discussion here gets redundant and that the guys over there may have better questions for you. I am quite willing to watch the discussion over there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I doubt that an experienced NASA programmer would be surprised by the way this theory explains how intelligence works.  At least one at NASA should know the work of David Heiserman, or other who now teaches his theory within their own.

I'll put a visit to UD in my overfilled suggestion box.  But have others to first visit again, after finishing work that started there, which needs attention too.  Especially Biology Online.

   
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 07 2012,21:02)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 But as I earlier mentioned I email Robert Crowther, Director of Communications at the Discovery Institute whenever there is a major development.  It's a quick way to stay in contact
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Acoording to DI's web pages      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Robert Crowther holds a BA in Journalism with an emphasis in public affairs and twenty years experience as a journalist, publisher, and brand marketing and media relations specialist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Do you think that he is qualified to follow your demanding thoughts? Actually, how many major developments did you report to him? How many times did he reply? And what did he actually have to say regarding your work? In addition, how did Caroline Crocker respond? You mentioned before that there were no complaints from DI folks but  did their replies go beyond that? Did they make comments or suggestions that helped you in one or another way? If so, what did they contribute and how did it help you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Robert Crowther is the director of communication, not their science expert(s).  It is not his job to give such opinions, they just communicate information back and forth.  Should suffice to say that they have been helpful. Sent me this in regards to the author/contributors to the premise of the theory:

< https://sites.google.com/site.......fID.pdf >

Dr. Crocker said quote: "I am not a computer expert so cannot really offer expertise. But, I have referred others to your information, in case they can help."
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 07 2012,22:07

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,21:32)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,21:19)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:48)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,20:36)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:11)
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Question still remains, of whether an AI expert system that has the knowledge of hundreds of physicians in it is actually "intelligent".  And for some weird reason you refuse to even answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because it has nothing to do with the discussion I'm trying to have? That a response would be rewarding a blatant attempt at digression away from the point? That would be *so* weird, wouldn't it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have been claiming that computational complexity theory which is applied to numerous AI techniques is a good test of whether something is actually intelligent or not.  

Your implied answer is that expert systems with large databases are so intelligent they far surpass the intelligence of any human who has ever lived.

My answer was "that is not reality, and only leads to your being easily fooled by unrealistic nonsense."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've said no such thing, Gary. If I had, you could demonstrate that with a quote of me saying that, which you will not manage because it doesn't exist. You do no better trying to read what I say than what Wikipedia says, apparently.

What I said was that your claim that your program could solve the TSP was a strong claim about *the* primary unresolved issue in computational complexity theory. That's what the stuff about P=NP was about, and if you knew diddly about computer science as a science, you would have understood that right off the bat. You didn't understood that, apparently still don't understand that, and still have no clue what is actually the point of the discussion. Hint: it isn't about some test for "intelligence". Hint: it is a far more basic issue in computer science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is where you started on the tangent of expecting this intelligence model to outperform all other models, regardless of their being intelligent or not:

   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,00:48)
Gary:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To make that claim stick, you'd have to have done a broad survey of capabilities of evolutionary computation instances and made specific comparisons demonstrating the superiority of your approach. I doubt that this has happened. You could dispel that by showing your work. Let's start with your comparison of your program and that of < Eureqa >. Please show us how your program does symbolic regression better than Eureqa. And then PyEvolve. And DEAP. And PyGP. Your claim implies that you've already taken this step, so all I'm asking for is that you show us what you must already have in hand.

Others have already asked for a similar comparison concerning the TSP. I'd be interested in that, too. I asked Bill Dembski to make his criticism of GAs stick when considering the TSP back in 1997, and so far as I know, he has never even attempted a discussion in general that focuses on the TSP. Can you do better?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A fly has more intelligence than an unintelligent expert system and such, yet your operational definition for intelligence apparently requires a fly to be more intelligent than an experienced human physician.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, you have quoted me.

But you haven't quoted me saying anything like what you claimed I said, so I have no clue why you even bothered making that post.

And that last bit... Are you not bright enough to parse a statement that you have not correctly understood what I was saying, since you persist in attributing to me stances I've never taken?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I warned you that you were making unfair/unrealistic comparisons.  I'm not at all surprised that the discussion did not go as you expected.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 07 2012,22:54

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,22:07)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,21:32)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,21:19)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:48)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,20:36)
           
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:11)
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Question still remains, of whether an AI expert system that has the knowledge of hundreds of physicians in it is actually "intelligent".  And for some weird reason you refuse to even answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because it has nothing to do with the discussion I'm trying to have? That a response would be rewarding a blatant attempt at digression away from the point? That would be *so* weird, wouldn't it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have been claiming that computational complexity theory which is applied to numerous AI techniques is a good test of whether something is actually intelligent or not.  

Your implied answer is that expert systems with large databases are so intelligent they far surpass the intelligence of any human who has ever lived.

My answer was "that is not reality, and only leads to your being easily fooled by unrealistic nonsense."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've said no such thing, Gary. If I had, you could demonstrate that with a quote of me saying that, which you will not manage because it doesn't exist. You do no better trying to read what I say than what Wikipedia says, apparently.

What I said was that your claim that your program could solve the TSP was a strong claim about *the* primary unresolved issue in computational complexity theory. That's what the stuff about P=NP was about, and if you knew diddly about computer science as a science, you would have understood that right off the bat. You didn't understood that, apparently still don't understand that, and still have no clue what is actually the point of the discussion. Hint: it isn't about some test for "intelligence". Hint: it is a far more basic issue in computer science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is where you started on the tangent of expecting this intelligence model to outperform all other models, regardless of their being intelligent or not:

         
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,00:48)
Gary:

             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To make that claim stick, you'd have to have done a broad survey of capabilities of evolutionary computation instances and made specific comparisons demonstrating the superiority of your approach. I doubt that this has happened. You could dispel that by showing your work. Let's start with your comparison of your program and that of < Eureqa >. Please show us how your program does symbolic regression better than Eureqa. And then PyEvolve. And DEAP. And PyGP. Your claim implies that you've already taken this step, so all I'm asking for is that you show us what you must already have in hand.

Others have already asked for a similar comparison concerning the TSP. I'd be interested in that, too. I asked Bill Dembski to make his criticism of GAs stick when considering the TSP back in 1997, and so far as I know, he has never even attempted a discussion in general that focuses on the TSP. Can you do better?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A fly has more intelligence than an unintelligent expert system and such, yet your operational definition for intelligence apparently requires a fly to be more intelligent than an experienced human physician.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, you have quoted me.

But you haven't quoted me saying anything like what you claimed I said, so I have no clue why you even bothered making that post.

And that last bit... Are you not bright enough to parse a statement that you have not correctly understood what I was saying, since you persist in attributing to me stances I've never taken?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I warned you that you were making unfair/unrealistic comparisons.  I'm not at all surprised that the discussion did not go as you expected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary, you've made some claims.

I've asked you to demonstrate that you have a basis for your claims.

You've declined to do so.

Along the way, you have demonstrated that you have no background in the topics that would be necessary to you successfully demonstrating your claims. You have cited material as if it supports some aspect of your responses, even though it is clear that you have not understood the content of that material. You have claimed that I have said certain things that I have not.

Back when you first started posting here, I did go looking for your prior history in discussions, and found documentation that you are a person with serious reading comprehension issues and bad communication skills. Gary, contrary to your final statement, this progression of discussion is *exactly* what I expected. I can't even claim to be disappointed with your poor showing, since I had the benefit of seeing your previous record of poor performances. Nonetheless, I did give you the opportunity to take a different path this time. It's not my fault that you failed yet again. Your claims remain extravagant and unsupported fantasies that you have no means to defend other than to attempt to throw up digression after digression in the vain hope that your correspondent would forget what the topic was. Your character was shown to be less than honorable by your eagerness to make false claims about what your correspondents say, to reiterate those false claims, and then to simply leave those false claims unretracted. Your grasp of computer science relevant to your claims was shown to be entirely lacking. And you did all of this to yourself. Congratulations.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 07 2012,23:02

Now we're back to the usual condemnations based on the opinions of forum-trolls and extremely biased individuals, instead of providing a better experimentable mechanism to explain how "intelligent cause" works.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 07 2012,23:03

my face when Wes chews tards



i'm sure that in 150 years everyone will know about this groundbreaking work but i suspect it will require someone who actually knows how to fucking describe it to wrest command of the ship away from Ahab




Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 07 2012,23:15

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,23:02)
Now we're back to the usual condemnations based on the opinions of forum-trolls and extremely biased individuals, instead of providing a better experimentable mechanism to explain how "intelligent cause" works.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And while Gary has time to spew falsehoods about what other people have said, he doesn't have time to do anything towards showing that his program is superior to evolutionary computation in any scientifically productive aspect, nor to show that he has any basis for the claim that his program might "solve" the TSP, thereby demonstrating that P=NP and providing the single greatest advance in computing since Turing thought about what he could do with an infinite paper tape. It's my opinion that Gary doesn't do any of the productive things that he might be doing along the lines of backing up his claims because he either knows he's spewing falsehoods or because he knows that's well outside his capabilities.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 07 2012,23:25

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,23:15)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,23:02)
Now we're back to the usual condemnations based on the opinions of forum-trolls and extremely biased individuals, instead of providing a better experimentable mechanism to explain how "intelligent cause" works.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And while Gary has time to spew falsehoods about what other people have said, he doesn't have time to do anything towards showing that his program is superior to evolutionary computation in any scientifically productive aspect, nor to show that he has any basis for the claim that his program might "solve" the TSP, thereby demonstrating that P=NP and providing the single greatest advance in computing since Turing thought about what he could do with an infinite paper tape. It's my opinion that Gary doesn't do any of the productive things that he might be doing along the lines of backing up his claims because he either knows he's spewing falsehoods or because he knows that's well outside his capabilities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And here we go again comparing nonintelligent algorithms to one that has to be in order to produce intelligent causation events.  I'm maybe best off to just ignore them, while waiting for someone to at least attempt to meet the burden of proof that here requires a more scientifically viable causation mechanism, for us to experiment with.

Science is no longer about answering questions people have.  It's all about making excuses for not having any answers.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 08 2012,04:25

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,23:25)
It's all about making excuses for not having any answers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have that exactly right.

That is the single thing you excel at.

Making excuses.

For.

Not.

Having.

Any.

Answers.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 08 2012,04:46

Gary,
One last post :)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Being self-learning, intelligence will produce the next emergent level of intelligence when it learns how to achieve it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Couple of questions on that.

How long have you been running your simulations for?

Has that happened?

If not, why do you believe it will happen? On what basis?

If not, what would it take for that to happen?

How long would you run your simulation for without the next emergent level of intelligence emerging before you concluded that it was never going to happen?

How would you tell if it did happen? What would be the sign?

What would be the delta in intelligence before and after, and how are your measuring that?

All simple questions you should be able to answer if you are not the bullshitter supreme you are giving a good impression of.
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 08 2012,06:13

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 08 2012,03:31)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:26)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,19:14)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:10)
A good question to ask right now would be:  Is the common AI technique called an "expert system" actually Intelligent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A more apropos question is why is Gary desperately trying to change the topic of discussion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You would simply rather discuss AI than to discuss what is truly relevant to the Theory of Intelligent Design.

You are essentially putting plastic artificial flowers under the microscope in order to support your biological conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank goodness Gary (the arbiter of true design theory ® [in VB] ) is here to tell us what's important. By redefining science and then sprinkling it in his word salad he's got a 'theory' that neither predicts nor explains anything. Well done sir! Templeton grant for you!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now now lets be fair.

You have to 2 x PhDs, with one in welshing, to get one of those.
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 08 2012,06:25

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 08 2012,07:25)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,23:15)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,23:02)
Now we're back to the usual condemnations based on the opinions of forum-trolls and extremely biased individuals, instead of providing a better experimentable mechanism to explain how "intelligent cause" works.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And while Gary has time to spew falsehoods about what other people have said, he doesn't have time to do anything towards showing that his program is superior to evolutionary computation in any scientifically productive aspect, nor to show that he has any basis for the claim that his program might "solve" the TSP, thereby demonstrating that P=NP and providing the single greatest advance in computing since Turing thought about what he could do with an infinite paper tape. It's my opinion that Gary doesn't do any of the productive things that he might be doing along the lines of backing up his claims because he either knows he's spewing falsehoods or because he knows that's well outside his capabilities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And here we go again comparing nonintelligent algorithms to one that has to be in order to produce intelligent causation events.  I'm maybe best off to just ignore them, while waiting for someone to at least attempt to meet the burden of proof that here requires a more scientifically viable causation mechanism, for us to experiment with.

Science is no longer about answering questions people have.  It's all about making excuses for not having any answers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stand in front of a mirror and read that backwards....
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 08 2012,06:34

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:02)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2012,19:36)
Gary, so now we add complexity to the list of things you have no clue on?

Just out of curiosity, have you researched your paper's failure on the concept of natural selection, the Cambrian explosion and the rather inexplicable graphs?

One would think that things in one's life's work that are wrong would be high on the discussion topic list.

Do you have a definition of "intelligence"?  If so, what is it?  No, I'm NOT going to troll through your paper for it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is the operational definition for intelligence, from the Introduction:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Intelligence is here operationally defined by how it works, as an autonomous sensory-feedback (confidence) guided sensory addressed memory system that through trial-and-error learns new successful actions to be taken in response to environmental conditions.  In addition to something to CONTROL and MEMORY there must be one or more CONFIDENCE levels gauging failure or success of its motor actions towards reaching the goal and a way to GUESS motor actions when a learned response does not yet exist but it must try something.  A good-guess is based upon existing knowledge.  A random-guess is the last resort and only has to be "random" to the intelligence.  For example where one must think up "random numbers" for another to guess they may use their phone number, which the other person does not know so to them they are indeed a random string of numbers.  What is most important for something to be "random" is that the intelligence perceives it as such.

Confidence gauges whether it is getting closer to its goal or not, if not then Guess is taken by changing direction to produce tumble/guess where to next go. In a most simple chemotaxis system Guess and Motor are combined, are the molecules that act as a switch to change motor direction where only a single memory location is required, instead of two as shown here that takes the same concept to self-learning as in the human brain and other intelligent living things where Motors (muscles) are separate from the Guess mechanism requiring two memory locations with In0/Out0 a 4 state (0-3) or more analog to recall confidence level that increases each time the action worked, decreases when it failed then upon reaching 0 produces a guess.  Like us we know when we need to take a guess or have an action response we are confident will work.  And as when first born, almost everything is a new experience. No memory at all of what to do is then sensed by Out0 being 0 which likewise produces a guess.  What works is stored with increasing confidence, for as long as it keeps working, but confidence level does not need to increase past 3 for a good model. In bacteria the interoceptive sensors would simply be metabolic pathway molecules reporting motor condition back to the sensory end of the system to provide time delay that through Confidence being restored by that action switches motor back to swimming after tumble has been completed.

There should always be an easily recognizable circuit where each part works with others in a certain way.  This includes motors/muscles where there are expected to be two connections to the memory/brain.  The input connects to the data action outputs of a Random Access Memory controlling it.  The output is a sensory feedback signal to RAM addressing that adds (usually subconscious) awareness of the muscle action.  This sensory output can be from other sensors not directly connected to, such as touch sensors on skin that “feel” muscles moving or eye sensing travel direction.  Without at least indirect sensory feedback of motor actions addressing RAM the system has no way to know whether the motor has in turn produced the expected action, or not.

Although not a circuit requirement (as in the four above) there should be the production of regular detectable synchronized cycles, as the algorithm/system keeps repeating the one thought at a time process.  Where these cycles are no longer present then the intelligence is nonfunctional.

Where a system is missing one or more requirements we have a system that may appear to be intelligent but would only qualify as a protointelligent behavior.  This is true where the sensor(s) connect directly to the motors in a way that keeps the system on course, but does not learn how to control itself.  There must be a memory system between sensors and motors being controlled.  An example so simple it is almost cheating is the E.coli chemotaxis system where chemoreceptors address a single memory location that increases or decreases according to the amount of chemical being sensed, and when it is going the wrong way tumbles to try another direction.

Being self-learning, intelligence will produce the next emergent level of intelligence when it learns how to achieve it.  Large numbers of rudimentary intelligences are predicted to have a tendency to spontaneously produce easily detectable and measurable emergent intelligence at the next level.  No computer code is needed, entities learn how to on their own.  Demonstrating this intelligent cause/causation would require many intelligent entities with rudimentary intelligence which self-assemble (at higher complexity is also called self-organize) to produce an emergent intelligence, much the same way a molecular genome produces a living cell, or living cells produced us.

< http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is more detail in following sections, but that's a summary.  Not needing a "natural selection" variable is the result of not needing a 1200+ year old generalization.  This is a cognitive theory, that explains how intelligence works, through time...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary, I'm trying to understand your definition of "intelligence". After reading it several times I get the impression that you're kinda sorta describing evolution but have added something along the line of molecules and/or cells having the ability to consciously think about what they want or need to do. Is that what you're saying, or close to it?

Some other questions I have are:

Do you agree with joe g and most or all other ID pushers that "ID" is all about 'origins'? If so, can and will you tell me where, when, and how "intelligence" originated and how you figured that out, if you have?

What is the "goal" of "intelligence", whether the alleged "intelligence" is in a molecule, a cell, a flower, a cat, a human, or anything else?

When a baby is born (and even before that) it has a heartbeat, brain activity, and other body functions (unless there's something wrong with it). Is it "intelligence" that causes those things? If so, does the "intelligence" reside in the baby's molecules, cells, heart, brain, or what?

Is "intelligence" the same as knowledge?

Do you see "intelligence" as something that was front-loaded (initially programmed) into atoms, molecules, cells, and/or something else by a 'designer/creator'?

Do you see human beings as the pinnacle of "intelligence"?

Are the molecules and/or cells in a spider, a mushroom, a tree, or a gorilla less or more intelligent than the ones in a human or are they equally intelligent?

Do all molecules everywhere contain "intelligence"?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 08 2012,07:00

Which came first, the intelligence or the organisms/universe it was supposed to have built?

If the answer is "intelligence" then you are describing a god and any claims about religious harrasment are your, not ours.

If the answer is "everything else" then where did the intelligence come from?  (hint: it's evolution, physics, and chemistry)
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 08 2012,07:20

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,23:25)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,23:15)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,23:02)
Now we're back to the usual condemnations based on the opinions of forum-trolls and extremely biased individuals, instead of providing a better experimentable mechanism to explain how "intelligent cause" works.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And while Gary has time to spew falsehoods about what other people have said, he doesn't have time to do anything towards showing that his program is superior to evolutionary computation in any scientifically productive aspect, nor to show that he has any basis for the claim that his program might "solve" the TSP, thereby demonstrating that P=NP and providing the single greatest advance in computing since Turing thought about what he could do with an infinite paper tape. It's my opinion that Gary doesn't do any of the productive things that he might be doing along the lines of backing up his claims because he either knows he's spewing falsehoods or because he knows that's well outside his capabilities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And here we go again comparing nonintelligent algorithms to one that has to be in order to produce intelligent causation events.  I'm maybe best off to just ignore them, while waiting for someone to at least attempt to meet the burden of proof that here requires a more scientifically viable causation mechanism, for us to experiment with.

Science is no longer about answering questions people have.  It's all about making excuses for not having any answers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's take a moment to review.

Item 1:

   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,06:45)
 
The theory is for modeling reality.  Current EA's and GA's are baby-toys in comparison.  Best way to prove that, is for you to try it for yourself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(Emphasis added.)

Item 2:

   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,22:21)

[...]  It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.  [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(Emphasis added.)

Item 3:

   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,05:39)

I have no doubt that it would easily solve the Traveling Salesman Problem. [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Items 1 and 2 demonstrate that Gary is quite willing to compare his work favorably to other techniques, without reference to their matching in every attribute exactly. I think the word typically deployed for the level of hypocrisy in response that Gary's dismissal of inconvenient comparisons displays is "chutzpah". It is only when Gary is called upon to do more than simply claim that he has already compared two techniques and found one superior, but show exactly how one is superior, that he suddenly finds comparison odious.

Item 3 demonstrates that Gary wasn't discussing a comparison in that instance, but rather making a simple unfounded brag about capability he believes his own system has. So complaining about comparisons has nothing whatsoever to do with demonstrating a supposed capability of his system. Or, rather, not demonstrating a supposed capability of his system.

Bottom line? We have no reason to believe that Gary Gaulin has compared his technique to evolutionary computation. The evidence of his responses testifies to his lack of familiarity with basic concepts that would be relevant to making such evaluations. Gary's reticence in revealing anything whatsoever about comparisons that he claims he's already made is most simply explained by assuming that he is stating something false to fact when saying that he has made any such comparisons. Gary could easily rectify this impression were it actually false by providing the details of the comparisons that he has claimed to have already done.

Did the dog eat them, Gary? Is it all about making excuses for not having any answers?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 08 2012,07:48

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,23:02)
Now we're back to the usual condemnations based on the opinions of forum-trolls and extremely biased individuals, instead of providing a better experimentable mechanism to explain how "intelligent cause" works.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait,

"Intelligence cause" is your notion.  Why is it up to internet trolls to provide YOU with a better experimental mechanism for YOUR notion?  

The only possible way that this makes sense is if you are calling yourself an internet troll, but I think that requires too much self reflection. Remember, it's up to the person making the claim to support it.  You don't believe that, so the rest of the world will go right on ignoring you until you A) support your notions and B) show that they are better than the actual theories we have now.

So, let's play a game.  Let's test your notions of intelligent causes.  I have two gene sequences, one of which was specifically designed by an intelligence (a human in this case) and the other was created randomly (random.org).  They are the same size.

Can you use your notions to tell us which was designed and which was not designed?

If you can, your on your way to a testable hypothesis.

If not, then there really isn't any point, because your notions are not able to differentiate between what you think is true and what everyone else thinks is true.

BTW: You must bow before me, as I am your king.  I'll also expect my yearly tribute in the form of a Best Buy gift card, prior to Thanksgiving Day.

(See how making statements doesn't mean anything if you can't support them?)
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 08 2012,08:24

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2012,15:00)
Which came first, the intelligence or the organisms/universe it was supposed to have built?

If the answer is "intelligence" then you are describing a god and any claims about religious harrasment are your, not ours.

If the answer is "everything else" then where did the intelligence come from?  (hint: it's evolution, physics, and chemistry)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


..erm I think he said god didit somewhere already.

He's just another biblical literalist who doesn't like the fact that things can evolve without HIM.

..oh and his projections know no bounds so you will only get denial from him, not rationality.
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 08 2012,12:32

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 08 2012,06:34)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:02)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2012,19:36)
Gary, so now we add complexity to the list of things you have no clue on?

Just out of curiosity, have you researched your paper's failure on the concept of natural selection, the Cambrian explosion and the rather inexplicable graphs?

One would think that things in one's life's work that are wrong would be high on the discussion topic list.

Do you have a definition of "intelligence"?  If so, what is it?  No, I'm NOT going to troll through your paper for it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is the operational definition for intelligence, from the Introduction:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Intelligence is here operationally defined by how it works, as an autonomous sensory-feedback (confidence) guided sensory addressed memory system that through trial-and-error learns new successful actions to be taken in response to environmental conditions.  In addition to something to CONTROL and MEMORY there must be one or more CONFIDENCE levels gauging failure or success of its motor actions towards reaching the goal and a way to GUESS motor actions when a learned response does not yet exist but it must try something.  A good-guess is based upon existing knowledge.  A random-guess is the last resort and only has to be "random" to the intelligence.  For example where one must think up "random numbers" for another to guess they may use their phone number, which the other person does not know so to them they are indeed a random string of numbers.  What is most important for something to be "random" is that the intelligence perceives it as such.

Confidence gauges whether it is getting closer to its goal or not, if not then Guess is taken by changing direction to produce tumble/guess where to next go. In a most simple chemotaxis system Guess and Motor are combined, are the molecules that act as a switch to change motor direction where only a single memory location is required, instead of two as shown here that takes the same concept to self-learning as in the human brain and other intelligent living things where Motors (muscles) are separate from the Guess mechanism requiring two memory locations with In0/Out0 a 4 state (0-3) or more analog to recall confidence level that increases each time the action worked, decreases when it failed then upon reaching 0 produces a guess.  Like us we know when we need to take a guess or have an action response we are confident will work.  And as when first born, almost everything is a new experience. No memory at all of what to do is then sensed by Out0 being 0 which likewise produces a guess.  What works is stored with increasing confidence, for as long as it keeps working, but confidence level does not need to increase past 3 for a good model. In bacteria the interoceptive sensors would simply be metabolic pathway molecules reporting motor condition back to the sensory end of the system to provide time delay that through Confidence being restored by that action switches motor back to swimming after tumble has been completed.

There should always be an easily recognizable circuit where each part works with others in a certain way.  This includes motors/muscles where there are expected to be two connections to the memory/brain.  The input connects to the data action outputs of a Random Access Memory controlling it.  The output is a sensory feedback signal to RAM addressing that adds (usually subconscious) awareness of the muscle action.  This sensory output can be from other sensors not directly connected to, such as touch sensors on skin that “feel” muscles moving or eye sensing travel direction.  Without at least indirect sensory feedback of motor actions addressing RAM the system has no way to know whether the motor has in turn produced the expected action, or not.

Although not a circuit requirement (as in the four above) there should be the production of regular detectable synchronized cycles, as the algorithm/system keeps repeating the one thought at a time process.  Where these cycles are no longer present then the intelligence is nonfunctional.

Where a system is missing one or more requirements we have a system that may appear to be intelligent but would only qualify as a protointelligent behavior.  This is true where the sensor(s) connect directly to the motors in a way that keeps the system on course, but does not learn how to control itself.  There must be a memory system between sensors and motors being controlled.  An example so simple it is almost cheating is the E.coli chemotaxis system where chemoreceptors address a single memory location that increases or decreases according to the amount of chemical being sensed, and when it is going the wrong way tumbles to try another direction.

Being self-learning, intelligence will produce the next emergent level of intelligence when it learns how to achieve it.  Large numbers of rudimentary intelligences are predicted to have a tendency to spontaneously produce easily detectable and measurable emergent intelligence at the next level.  No computer code is needed, entities learn how to on their own.  Demonstrating this intelligent cause/causation would require many intelligent entities with rudimentary intelligence which self-assemble (at higher complexity is also called self-organize) to produce an emergent intelligence, much the same way a molecular genome produces a living cell, or living cells produced us.

< http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is more detail in following sections, but that's a summary.  Not needing a "natural selection" variable is the result of not needing a 1200+ year old generalization.  This is a cognitive theory, that explains how intelligence works, through time...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary, I'm trying to understand your definition of "intelligence". After reading it several times I get the impression that you're kinda sorta describing evolution but have added something along the line of molecules and/or cells having the ability to consciously think about what they want or need to do. Is that what you're saying, or close to it?

Some other questions I have are:

Do you agree with joe g and most or all other ID pushers that "ID" is all about 'origins'? If so, can and will you tell me where, when, and how "intelligence" originated and how you figured that out, if you have?

What is the "goal" of "intelligence", whether the alleged "intelligence" is in a molecule, a cell, a flower, a cat, a human, or anything else?

When a baby is born (and even before that) it has a heartbeat, brain activity, and other body functions (unless there's something wrong with it). Is it "intelligence" that causes those things? If so, does the "intelligence" reside in the baby's molecules, cells, heart, brain, or what?

Is "intelligence" the same as knowledge?

Do you see "intelligence" as something that was front-loaded (initially programmed) into atoms, molecules, cells, and/or something else by a 'designer/creator'?

Do you see human beings as the pinnacle of "intelligence"?

Are the molecules and/or cells in a spider, a mushroom, a tree, or a gorilla less or more intelligent than the ones in a human or are they equally intelligent?

Do all molecules everywhere contain "intelligence"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary, from what I know about him you may want to meet gpuccio of UD. It seems likely that he will uderstand you:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 38 gpuccio July 30, 2008 at 1:50 am >

sparc:

First of all, I really believe that my assumptions are right, and I invite you to tell where they should be wrong. In a sense, they are not assumptions at all, but very simple facts about probability.

Regarding the immune system, the scenario is completely different. Primary antibody diversification is a process which uses random variation very intelligently targeted to generate a repertoire of basic antibody specificities to cover, at a low specificity level, a search space which is very big, but not immense, referring to possible epitopes in nature (an epitope is a very small aminoacid sequence, usually a few aminoacids, or up to ten -fifteen). Even so, the basic repertoire is very unspecific, and can ensure only a low level interaction with possible epitopes. Antibody maturation “after” primary response, instead, is a typical process which utilizes random variation very intelligently targeted plus very intelligent selection to increase the specificity of the immune response. Indeed, the process utilized here is the same as used in modern protein engineering: the results of targeted random variation are “measured” against the original epitope, and intelligent selection takes place (obviously, here selection includes very specific informatioon about the target, that is the epitope itself, and is therefore very efficient).

So, as you can see, there is nothing in what we know about antibody generation which is inconsistent with my “assumptions”. Antibody generation is a perfect example of intelligent engineering using the realistic resources of probability. It is therefore perfectly natural and reasonable that the immune system of birds or mammals can “produce antibodies against antigens that they or their ancestors never encountered before”.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 08 2012,13:08

Some of his stuff reminded me of what I've read about neural networks.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Nov. 08 2012,13:29

I'm still waiting for a sensible way of differentiation trial and error learning from evolution at the conceptual level.

Recognizing differences in the hardware implementation.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 08 2012,13:45

Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 08 2012,11:29)
I'm still waiting for a sensible way of differentiation trial and error learning from evolution at the conceptual level.

Recognizing differences in the hardware implementation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Apparently basic chemistry and physics is "intelligent".

Like the old joke about explaining a ThermosTM to the old fart.

"What does it do?"
"It keeps hot things hot, and cold things cold."
"How does it know?"
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 08 2012,14:32

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,23:25)
Science is no longer about answering questions people have.  It's all about making excuses for not having any answers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Maaaaaahhhhmmm! I don't like this mean science stuff! The rules are too hard! And...and...the science types...they expect me to do actual work and SHOW it! Why won't they let me use my own definition of science so that I can prove what I want to without having to do anything!! Waaahhh!! Waaahh!"

I know Barbie, it's tough having to go along with the rules, but you're a big boy now. Time to put on those big boy pants. Oh c'mon. < I know, it's so hard... >
Posted by: keiths on Nov. 08 2012,14:44

Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 08 2012,11:29)
I'm still waiting for a sensible way of differentiation trial and error learning from evolution at the conceptual level.

Recognizing differences in the hardware implementation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In evolution, "who" is doing the learning?  The gene pool?  The universe?
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 08 2012,15:12

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 08 2012,11:45)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 08 2012,11:29)
I'm still waiting for a sensible way of differentiation trial and error learning from evolution at the conceptual level.

Recognizing differences in the hardware implementation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Apparently basic chemistry and physics is "intelligent".

Like the old joke about explaining a ThermosTM to the old fart.

"What does it do?"
"It keeps hot things hot, and cold things cold."
"How does it know?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the sense* I got too.  Anything non-random is "intelligent", and he's not sure yet about random.





* Possibly the first ever use of the word "sense" in association with Gary's screed.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 08 2012,15:15

Quote (keiths @ Nov. 08 2012,13:44)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 08 2012,11:29)
I'm still waiting for a sensible way of differentiation trial and error learning from evolution at the conceptual level.

Recognizing differences in the hardware implementation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In evolution, "who" is doing the learning?  The gene pool?  The universe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm inclined to say the gene pool. An evolving gene pool has at least a couple of the attributes we associate with intelligence - it experiments, and it keeps a record of what works. Granted, it doesn't keep a record of what to avoid in the future, it doesn't think ahead, or at all, really.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 08 2012,15:49

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 08 2012,13:15)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 08 2012,13:44)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 08 2012,11:29)
I'm still waiting for a sensible way of differentiation trial and error learning from evolution at the conceptual level.

Recognizing differences in the hardware implementation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In evolution, "who" is doing the learning?  The gene pool?  The universe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm inclined to say the gene pool. An evolving gene pool has at least a couple of the attributes we associate with intelligence - it experiments, and it keeps a record of what works. Granted, it doesn't keep a record of what to avoid in the future, it doesn't think ahead, or at all, really.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


History is written by the winners.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 08 2012,15:50

Quote (keiths @ Nov. 08 2012,15:44)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 08 2012,11:29)
I'm still waiting for a sensible way of differentiation trial and error learning from evolution at the conceptual level.

Recognizing differences in the hardware implementation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In evolution, "who" is doing the learning?  The gene pool?  The universe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you're mom
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 08 2012,15:58

That was a good question to ask them keiths!  And ironically I did not bother responding to the usual insults, to instead spent some time catching up on other theory related work, including better piecing together the Introduction to the booklet version of the theory (classroom workbook).  This will help provide a coherent answer to your question.

Considering how the text of theory is still being ignored, I'll have to post the Introduction here:


Introduction – Intelligence, Intelligent Cause

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, a nonrandom force guided self-assembly  process whereby an intelligent entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in levels of increasingly complex organization producing self-similar entities systematically in their own image, likeness. As in a fractal, multiple designs are produced by an algorithm producing emergent fractal-similar designs at the next size scale (atom -> molecule -> cell -> multicellular).



Large arrows show this emergent causative pathway from behavior of matter (a Behavioral Cause) and intelligence from intelligence (an Intelligent Cause). The last arrow to Multicellular Intelligence indicates a predicted sudden event scientifically witnessed by the fossil record known as the Cambrian Explosion which will be covered in a section of its own. Shown in the lower half of the illustration is a simplified block-flow diagram of the same cognitive/intelligence system  that is at each level of the progression shown above it.

Successful designs remain in the biosphere’s interconnected collective (RNA/DNA) memory to help keep going the billions year old cycle of life. We are the result of a molecular learning process that keeps itself going through time by replicating previous contents of genetic memory along with good (better than random) guesses what may work better in the next replication, children. Resulting cladogram shows a progression of adapting designs evidenced by the fossil record where never once was there not a predecessor of similar design (which can at times lead to entirely new function) present in memory for the descendant design to have come from.  

Behavior of matter is produced by electromagnetic force created atomic bonds and intermolecular interactions (covalent, polar covalent, van der Waals polar force, ionic, metallic, hydrogen) and follows the “laws of physics”. This is covered by Atomic Theory, which describes the atoms in the model’s particle system environment. Behavior of matter can only respond to exteroceptive stimuli one way, such as bonding with another molecule or not, therefore has two of four requirements for intelligence (but does not by itself qualify as intelligence). It is not possible to rule out intelligence at this behavior level, but with no scientific evidence existing for this the behavior of matter is assumed to not require intelligence to produce intelligence, the origin of intelligent life.



As in physics algorithms, there is a Time Step.  Each particle/entity in the virtual environment is something to CONTROL that is moved a small amount each time according to surrounding forces/conditions acting upon it.  What response to take in a given condition is stored in a memory that is addressed by sensory that produces a unique action response for each environmental situation the particle can encounter. Memory can be here thought of as a binary digital RAM or analog neural network that has in it a truth table to produce the behavior for each kind of atom.

For modeling purposes where a “Behavior” produces an emergent intelligence the behavior that created it can be thought of as being “all knowing” in the sense that the behavior is inherent, does not have to learn its responses.  A computer model then starts off with this behavior already in RAM or ROM and has no GUESS or CONFIDENCE included in the algorithm, as does intelligence.  Memory contents then never changes, in this model only a GUESS writes data to MEMORY.

Intelligence is not a lifeless mass responding to physical forces by drifting downstream, intelligence can do such things as decide to swim upstream instead. In a complete physics model where all matter obeys physical laws, intelligence is an emergent deterministic internal force inside (then living) things that “at will” becomes an outside force causing change in motion to matter around it.

Intelligent behavior results in an entity with the ability to self-learn.  The flowchart becomes:

 

Intelligence is here operationally defined by how it works: Intelligence is an autonomous sensory-feedback (confidence) guided sensory addressed memory system that through trial-and-error learns new successful actions to be taken in response to environmental conditions.  In addition to something to CONTROL and MEMORY there must be one or more CONFIDENCE levels gauging failure or success of its motor actions towards reaching the goal and a way to GUESS motor actions when a successful response does not yet exist.  A good-guess is based upon existing knowledge.  A random-guess is the last resort and only has to be "random" to the intelligence.  For example where one must produce "random numbers" for another to guess they may use their phone number, which to them is not a random string of numbers, but to the other person who does not know their phone number it is a random string of numbers.  What is most important for something to be "random" is that the intelligence perceives it as such.

Confidence gauges whether it is getting closer to its goal or not.  In0/Out0 is a 4 state (count of 0-3) or more analog signal that recalls confidence level which increases each time the action worked, decreases when it failed, upon reaching 0 a Guess is taken. In a most simple chemotaxis system Guess and Motor are combined, changing motor direction produces a tumble/guess where to go next.  Only a single memory location is then required.

We know when we need to take a guess, or have an action response we are confident will work.  To a newborn baby, almost everything is a new experience. No memory at all of what to do is then sensed by Out0 being 0 which then causes a guess to be taken.  Responses that work are stored with increasing confidence, for as long as it keeps working, but confidence level does not need to increase past 3 for a good model. In bacteria the interoceptive sensors would simply be metabolic pathway molecules reporting motor condition back to the sensory end of the system to provide time delay that through Confidence being restored by that action switches motor back to swimming after tumble has been completed.

There should always be an easily recognizable circuit where each part works with others in a certain way.  This includes motors/muscles where there are expected to be two connections to the memory/brain.  The input connects to the data action outputs of a Random Access Memory controlling it.  The output is a sensory feedback signal to RAM addressing that adds (usually subconscious) awareness of the muscle action.  This sensory output can be from other sensors not directly connected to, such as touch sensors on skin that “feel” muscles moving or eye sensing travel direction.  Without at least indirect sensory feedback of motor actions addressing RAM the system has no way to know whether the motor has in turn produced the expected action, or not.

Although not a circuit requirement (as in the four above) there should be the production of regular detectable synchronized cycles, as the algorithm/system keeps repeating the one thought at a time process.  Where these cycles are no longer present then the intelligence is nonfunctional.

Where a system is missing one or more requirements we have a system that may appear to be intelligent but would only qualify as a protointelligent behavior.  This is true where the sensor(s) connect directly to the motors in a way that keeps the system on course, but does not learn how to control itself.  There must be a memory system between sensors and motors being controlled.  An example so simple it is almost cheating is the E.coli chemotaxis system where chemoreceptors address a single memory location that increases or decreases according to the amount of chemical being sensed, and when it is going the wrong way tumbles to try another direction.

Being self-learning, given enough time, intelligence will produce the next emergent level of intelligence when it learns how to achieve it.  Large numbers of rudimentary intelligences are predicted to have a tendency to spontaneously produce easily detectable and measurable emergent intelligence at the next level.  No computer code is needed, entities learn how to on their own.  Demonstrating this intelligent cause/causation would require many intelligent entities with rudimentary intelligence which self-assemble (at higher complexity is also called self-organize) to produce an emergent intelligence, much the same way a molecular genome produces a living cell, or living cells produced us.

Because of atom by atom computing being too memory intensive to computer model a large volume of matter, macromolecules can be approximated in the next level above atoms where it is no longer an atom by atom particle system physics problem, there are instead (combination of atoms) molecules each with unique behavior that can be summed up as a unique single entity (in the same way as classic Argon particle system describes all argon atoms but instead as molecular binding/reaction site dynamics of all its atoms combined). Macromolecules next self-assemble to form cells, which likewise can also be modeled at the next level by just modeling the cellular detail where a muscle cells are a regular spherical shape that shortens in length during contraction. And that can next be taken another step as is demonstrated by the Intelligence Design Lab where the behavior of many sensors and neurons/synapse is summed up to form the brain that connects to muscle cells that control muscles that can also send dirt particles flying or (as is the case in the Lab) simply propel it on a flat surface without disturbing anything. It is not necessary to start at the atomic level we only need to properly sum up one level to the next to produce a representative model. We must also keep in mind that with a computer it is easy to model a perfect memory that never forgets. In some ways the intelligence may be too perfect to be biologically possible, but at least it is easy to achieve that perfection, here made possible by the reliability of computer RAM to hold data

Reciprocal causation brings all of our complex intelligence related behaviors back to the behavior of matter where it's basic physics, that begins with common particle systems such as for modeling Argon (and other) atoms on a parallel processing GPU. Here all argon atoms are alike, as well as helium, carbon and all of the other elements and their isotopes. This regular atomic structure becomes the fundamental starting point for models like this where atoms combine to form molecules, molecules combine to form cells, and cells combine to produce multicellular organisms.

The reciprocal causation pathway goes from one level to the next but not directly from brain to matter, because just thinking about digging a hole in the ground does not propel virtual soil particles through air. There is first a neural connection between brain and muscle cells, then a neural feedback connection from the muscle cells back to the brain. After the muscle cells successfully receive this signal to contract it next has to convert that signal into a pulling "force" by powering its internal motor protein molecules, and like any other motor it needs energy to make it move on command and where that has run out there will be no digging either because it will then be too weak to move. There is no force applied to the digging limb until the molecular level systems have actually produced muscle force, to apply force to the limb accelerating soil particles into the air to dig a hole in an otherwise perfectly flat environment.

For sake of theory, “consciousness” is considered to be in addition to intelligence, otherwise the most rudimentary forms of intelligence and even simple algorithm generated computer models of intelligent processes would have to be expected to be conscious of their existing inside of a personal computer.  It is not possible to rule-out electronic or algorithmic consciousness existing, therefore even though it is not expected to exist in a computer model it is still possible that any functioning intelligence system is somehow conscious of their existence.  In either case, consciousness is not a requirement for intelligence, and here must be considered to be in addition to intelligence.

< http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com >
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 08 2012,16:14

The only thing I'd like to see clarified is the "Ability to take a GUESS". Is the use of UC letters in "guess" of any particular significance? A higher order kind of guess, not just a wet finger in the air to guess which way the wind blows?

The rest is kindergarten stuff.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 08 2012,16:55

Where is the memory in a bacteria?
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 08 2012,17:00

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 08 2012,16:14)
The only thing I'd like to see clarified is the "Ability to take a GUESS". Is the use of UC letters in "guess" of any particular significance? A higher order kind of guess, not just a wet finger in the air to guess which way the wind blows?

The rest is kindergarten stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The theory has a separate section for each intelligence level, with examples of how a guess is accomplished by each.  A quick answer would be:

Molecular Intelligence:  Transpositions.

Cellular Intelligence: Tumbling.

Multicellular Intelligence: Induced neural response change.

Algorithmic Intelligence: Random generator.

Electronic Intelligence: Zener diode noise into RAM motor Data In pins.

I'm not sure what you mean by "use of UC letters" other than that being part of the RNA alphabet.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 08 2012,17:05

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2012,16:55)
Where is the memory in a bacteria?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From theory:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
REQUIREMENT #2 of 4 – SENSORY ADDRESSABLE MEMORY

E.coli senses chemoeffector gradients in temporal fashion (recall series of readings/conditions back in time) by comparing current concentrations to those encountered over the past few seconds of travel, a single element reversible methylation temporal memory, to navigate its environment.

Cellular (and molecular intelligence) can include “plasmid exchange” memories which is a very useful form of communication between members of a bacterial colony where all share tiny circular loops of genetic information, mostly only share with its own kind.  When one finds a useful solution to a given environmental situation all others around soon know it ahead of time.  The entire colony of bacteria cells functions as a single organism.  In plasmid exchange cells conjugate, bump into another then wait for plasmids they do not have yet to be copied/learned then look for another to conjugate with.  To a cell, some plasmids can be like a harmful disabling/traumatizing parasite.

Only germline cells that divide to become egg and sperm cells must accurately copy the full genetic memory.  After germline cells fuse (fertilization) they begin to modify their genome as much as is necessary to achieve differentiation into a specialized cell. It is here changing in morphology in response to its environment to be able to survive one cellular lifetime.  During development of the organism many kinds of cells (muscle and skin cells, neurons, etc.) with many cellular intelligence behaviors are produced by the germline cells which remain the same through time to produce the eggs and sperm of another generation.

See:
An overview of E. coli chemotaxis, Parkinson Lab, Department Of Biology – University Of Utah
< http://chemotaxis.biology.utah.edu/Parkins....is.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: midwifetoad on Nov. 08 2012,17:20

Quote (keiths @ Nov. 08 2012,14:44)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 08 2012,11:29)
I'm still waiting for a sensible way of differentiation trial and error learning from evolution at the conceptual level.

Recognizing differences in the hardware implementation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In evolution, "who" is doing the learning?  The gene pool?  The universe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The population's genome is the memory being modified by experience.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 08 2012,17:25

I just noticed that the reference link to the Parkinson Lab overview is down.  Since it is a nice page I'll wait before removing it from the text.  You should be able to easily find more detail by searching with keywords "e.coli chemotaxis" then focus on the motor switching circuit, here the one bit "memory".
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 08 2012,17:46

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 08 2012,17:05)
Let's see if I can translate this properly.

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2012,16:55)
Where is the memory in a bacteria?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From theory:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
REQUIREMENT #2 of 4 – SENSORY ADDRESSABLE MEMORY

E.coli senses chemoeffector gradients in temporal fashion

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually I'd like a definition of "senses" and if this is internal chemical gradients (chemoeffector is goobledity gook) or external.

It sense them across time... just like everything else.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(recall series of readings/conditions back in time)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are assuming memory here, not supporting it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


by comparing current concentrations to those encountered over the past few seconds of travel

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I disagree with that this is how this occurs.  Cite your references that this actually occurs.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

, a single element reversible methylation temporal memory, to navigate its environment.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, you're assuming that this is memory, not supporting it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cellular (and molecular intelligence) can include “plasmid exchange”

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, DNA is the memory.  

Do you know why scientists don't consider DNA to be memory?  Here's a hint... Cognitive neuroscientists consider memory as the retention, reactivation, and reconstruction of the experience-independent internal representation.

DNA does not encode experience.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

memories which is a very useful form of communication

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cite a reference for this.  Plasmid exchange is a form of sharing genes... not memories.  Although, you've pretty much changed the definition of memory to the point where it's meaningless.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


between members of a bacterial colony where all share tiny circular loops of genetic information, mostly only share with its own kind.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cite your evidence for this... because it's wrong.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 When one finds a useful solution to a given environmental situation all others around soon know it ahead of time.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, bacteria are precognitive??  Because that's what your words are saying.  That bacteria will know what a useful solution is ahead of the need for it.

But again, since bacteria have no cognitive ability, how are they 'knowing' anything?  But, I guess you think that bacteria are intelligent too.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 The entire colony of bacteria cells functions as a single organism.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Umm.... no it doesn't.  Only if you redefine "single organism" to include every living thing on the planet.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 In plasmid exchange cells conjugate, bump into another then wait for plasmids they do not have yet to be copied/learned then look for another to conjugate with.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is this really what they do?  Cite a reference please.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 To a cell, some plasmids can be like a harmful disabling/traumatizing parasite.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cite a reference please.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Only germline cells that divide to become egg and sperm cells must accurately copy the full genetic memory.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But bacteria don't do this, so what is the point?

Also, you're wrong.  There is no genetic memory.  There is, however, genetic changes in somatic cells that can have major implications for the rest of the organism.  Perhaps you've heard of this situation.  It's called 'cancer'.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 After germline cells fuse (fertilization) they begin to modify their genome

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bullshit.  I don't believe you.  This is the kind of thing that makes people look at you like you have two heads.  Most of them are thinking "how does he remember to breathe?"

I want any single piece of evidence that the embryo MODIFIES its genome.  I triple dog dare you to link to any peer-reviewed evidence that supports this.

Of course, if you read peer-reviewed research instead of just making shit up, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

So, I'm calling you out on this one.  It is total and complete made-up bullshit.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



as much as is necessary to achieve differentiation into a specialized cell.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?  Tell me, do skin cells have a different genome from liver cells?  Because that's what you are saying.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It is here changing in morphology in response to its environment to be able to survive one cellular lifetime.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So a cell, within its lifetime, can actively change its morphology?!?!?  Citation please.  Because I'm calling BS on this one too.

Do you even know what morphology means?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 During development of the organism many kinds of cells (muscle and skin cells, neurons, etc.) with many cellular intelligence behaviors

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, your definition of intelligence is behavior?  So, oceans are intelligent.  They have many different behaviors and are affected by and affect their environment.  Waves even transmit information.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



are produced by the germline cells which remain the same through time to produce the eggs and sperm of another generation.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bullshit.  Citation please.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

See:
An overview of E. coli chemotaxis, Parkinson Lab, Department Of Biology – University Of Utah
< http://chemotaxis.biology.utah.edu/Parkins....is.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You might want to check this link as there appears to be no such thing at utah.edu.  

Several links to the genetics and biology department pop-right up, but this one doesn't seem to exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell you what, since your link is all busted and everything, let's go see what your favorite resource (Wikipedia) has to say on the subject of < chemotaxis >.

Chemotaxis is NOT memory... again, unless you totally redefine 'memory'.  

Basically what you are describing, in very complex terms (and with many, many mistakes) is evolution and chemotaxis, which is a chemical response system.

This is just one of those cases where some weird interpretations of words result in complete confusion on his part.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 08 2012,17:55

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 08 2012,17:25)
I just noticed that the reference link to the Parkinson Lab overview is down.  Since it is a nice page I'll wait before removing it from the text.  You should be able to easily find more detail by searching with keywords "e.coli chemotaxis" then focus on the motor switching circuit, here the one bit "memory".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is only arguably memory in that it is, as you said, one bit memory.  

I think you are conflating the existence of memory with intelligence.

Trees "remember" their entire existence in the form of growth rings.  This does not mean that they can discuss their memories.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 08 2012,18:06

Yeah, I gave up at    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Each particle/entity in the virtual environment is something to CONTROL that is moved a small amount each time according to surrounding forces/conditions acting upon it.  What response to take in a given condition is stored in a memory that is addressed by sensory that produces a unique action response for each environmental situation the particle can encounter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are truly unable to distinguish between your virtual environment and the real world, aren't you.

< Since you like hyperlinks so much. >
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 08 2012,18:16

I just put this one on-deck so it's ready to go at any time.  

< Evanescence - What You Want >

The conspiracy (as opposed to scientific) theorists at least have perfect timing!  
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 08 2012,19:04

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 08 2012,18:16)
I just put this one on-deck so it's ready to go at any time.  

< Evanescence - What You Want >

The conspiracy (as opposed to scientific) theorists at least have perfect timing!  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary, your highly equivocal use of theory above simpy reinforces the facts that you don't undertand what a scientific theory is and that you don't have one.
Posted by: keiths on Nov. 08 2012,19:26

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 08 2012,13:50)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 08 2012,15:44)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 08 2012,11:29)
I'm still waiting for a sensible way of differentiation trial and error learning from evolution at the conceptual level.

Recognizing differences in the hardware implementation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In evolution, "who" is doing the learning?  The gene pool?  The universe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you're mom
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


'Ras,

Get back to Honey Boo-boo and your Three's Company reruns.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Nov. 08 2012,19:30

I don't know who this is in response to, but genomes do encode the experience of populations. Perhaps there is some confusion in terminology because some meanings of experience imply consciousness.

But genomes encode the successful guesses of populations that vary. Experience is encoded because some guesses have higher reproductive success. This may be due to greater fitness or it may be due to luck. But it always encodes fitness.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 08 2012,20:20

Gary seems to think that he can post a bunch of claims, make excuses as to why he shouldn't be held accountable to support or retract them, and that they will eventually be forgotten. This is a time-honored antievolutionist tactic, after all. Who could be bothered to dig back through the forum to see whether he's left things hanging? The answer for that is a periodic posting of a summary of such items, to make sure that folks tuning in late are apprised of just what sort of correspondent they have at hand. And so I give you the first posting of the...




Periodically Posted List of Abandoned or Unsupported Claims: Gary Gaulin Edition

1. Citric Acid Cycle Description

< The claim >

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Control Of Krebs Cycle By Molecular Intelligence

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.



At any stage through the assembly cycle a molecule of proper fit may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby self-assembly interaction to where it fits. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.[11][12]

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it. A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< The request for documentation >

< Response >

Status: Abandoned. Bizarre, false-to-fact description of the citric acid cycle is left unretracted as if it supported Gaulin's concept of "molecular intelligence".

2. Gaulin Code v. Evolutionary Computation

< The claim >

       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,06:45)

The theory is for modeling reality. Current EA's and GA's are baby-toys in comparison. Best way to prove that, is for you to try it for yourself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(Emphasis added.)

     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,22:21)

[...] It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys. [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(< Emphasis added >.)

< The request for documentation >

< Response >

Status: Abandoned. Complete refusal to divulge the substance of the comparisons that Gaulin claims he already has made.

3. Gaulin Code, the Traveling Salesman Problem, and Computational Complexity Theory

< The claim >

     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,05:39)

I have no doubt that it would easily solve the Traveling Salesman Problem. [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Request for documentation >

< Response >

Status: Abandoned. After making ignorant and bizarre claims about computational complexity theory ("It's a collection of AI techniques"), Gaulin decided to stop responding to requests to demonstrate these claims.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 08 2012,20:40

At this point, I'm left with the impression that he's taking what science already has, and tacking the word "intelligence" in a bunch of places where it adds nothing useful to the concepts.

Henry
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 08 2012,20:45

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 08 2012,20:40)
At this point, I'm left with the impression that he's taking what science already has, and tacking the word "intelligence" in a bunch of places where it adds nothing useful to the concepts.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are several people who have decided that the best approach is to now re-label unexceptionable parts of science as "intelligent design". Later on, the DI™ components can be smuggled in under the term after this period of rehabilitation.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 08 2012,20:54

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 08 2012,20:45)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 08 2012,20:40)
At this point, I'm left with the impression that he's taking what science already has, and tacking the word "intelligence" in a bunch of places where it adds nothing useful to the concepts.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are several people who have decided that the best approach is to now re-label unexceptionable parts of science as "intelligent design". Later on, the DI™ components can be smuggled in under the term after this period of rehabilitation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A very similar approach was just done by AIG.  They created a list of the 'kinds' aboard the Ark.  Shockingly, it looks almost exactly like the 'families' in the modern taxonomic structure.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 08 2012,21:40

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 08 2012,21:45)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 08 2012,20:40)
At this point, I'm left with the impression that he's taking what science already has, and tacking the word "intelligence" in a bunch of places where it adds nothing useful to the concepts.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are several people who have decided that the best approach is to now re-label unexceptionable parts of science as "intelligent design". Later on, the DI™ components can be smuggled in under the term after this period of rehabilitation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1.  find underdetermined systems

2.  label them intelligently designed

3.  run out of the lab like it was on fire

4.  move to seattle

5.  buy my book
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 08 2012,23:07

Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 08 2012,17:30)
I don't know who this is in response to, but genomes do encode the experience of populations. Perhaps there is some confusion in terminology because some meanings of experience imply consciousness.

But genomes encode the successful guesses of populations that vary. Experience is encoded because some guesses have higher reproductive success. This may be due to greater fitness or it may be due to luck. But it always encodes fitness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except that variation is not a "guess".  It's a contingent accident.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 09 2012,03:45

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 08 2012,20:20)
Gary seems to think that he can post a bunch of claims, make excuses as to why he shouldn't be held accountable to support or retract them, and that they will eventually be forgotten. This is a time-honored antievolutionist tactic, after all. Who could be bothered to dig back through the forum to see whether he's left things hanging? The answer for that is a periodic posting of a summary of such items, to make sure that folks tuning in late are apprised of just what sort of correspondent they have at hand. And so I give you the first posting of the...

Periodically Posted List of Abandoned or Unsupported Claims: Gary Gaulin Edition

1. Citric Acid Cycle Description

< The claim >

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Control Of Krebs Cycle By Molecular Intelligence

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.

At any stage through the assembly cycle a molecule of proper fit may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby self-assembly interaction to where it fits. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.[11][12]

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it. A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< The request for documentation >

< Response >

Status: Abandoned. Bizarre, false-to-fact description of the citric acid cycle is left unretracted as if it supported Gaulin's concept of "molecular intelligence".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There is no other place that I know of where this is documented.  And that is what a theory is for, to explain things that have never ever been explained before. Demanding documentation that does not exist, instead of providing evidence to the contrary, is here highly unscientific.

 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 08 2012,20:20)
2. Gaulin Code v. Evolutionary Computation

< The claim >

           
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,06:45)

The theory is for modeling reality. Current EA's and GA's are baby-toys in comparison. Best way to prove that, is for you to try it for yourself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(Emphasis added.)

           
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,22:21)

[...] It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys. [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(< Emphasis added >.)

< The request for documentation >

< Response >

Status: Abandoned. Complete refusal to divulge the substance of the comparisons that Gaulin claims he already has made.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are again demanding documentation that does not yet exist.  And I am entitled to my honest opinion of how "realistic" EA'a and GA's are.  That's why I never found them very scientifically interesting, and instead experimented with simple cognitive models that can outperform them.

 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 08 2012,20:20)
3. Gaulin Code, the Traveling Salesman Problem, and Computational Complexity Theory

< The claim >

         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,05:39)

I have no doubt that it would easily solve the Traveling Salesman Problem. [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Request for documentation >

< Response >

Status: Abandoned. After making ignorant and bizarre claims about computational complexity theory ("It's a collection of AI techniques"), Gaulin decided to stop responding to requests to demonstrate these claims.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You sure like to nitpick.  I gave you an example of a fly (intelligence) that just keeps bashing into a window until it knocks itself senseless and never gets out, even where there is a nearby exit.  If that is not utterly being unable to find any solution at all to the Traveling Salesman Problem then you tell me how well it did at finding a solution to the problem after it is one more dead bug on the windowsill that made it no further than that.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 09 2012,04:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I am entitled to my honest opinion of how "realistic" EA'a and GA's are.  That's why I never found them very scientifically interesting, and instead experimented with simple cognitive models that can outperform them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's right. And that is all it is, an opinion.

And it's not even an honest one is it?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
simple cognitive models that can outperform them
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't you get it?

THIS IS A CLAIM:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
simple cognitive models that can outperform them
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



FURTHERMORE it's an unsupported claim.

It's your claim, so support it!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You sure like to nitpick.  I gave you an example of a fly (intelligence) that just keeps bashing into a window until it knocks itself senseless and never gets out, even where there is a nearby exit.  If that is not utterly being unable to find any solution at all to the Traveling Salesman Problem then you tell me how well it did at finding a solution to the problem after it is one more dead bug on the windowsill that made it no further than that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah, so you don't need to support the claim because of this world salad?

In what way is a fly flying solving the TSP?

The simple fact is that the number of fly's that become trapped behind windows is trivial compared to the number that do not. So as a selective force, being able to work out what a window is not really up there.

So because a fly can't find it's way out you don't have to demonstrate your specific CLAIM that:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I am entitled to my honest opinion of how "realistic" EA'a and GA's are.  That's why I never found them very scientifically interesting, and instead experimented with simple cognitive models that can outperform them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why don't you take the TSP challenge Gary? It's from 2006 but you'd be the first ID supporter to attempt it AFAIK.

< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....gn.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will announce the winners (if any) in a week’s time, and also will present the answer that Evolution came up with. I’m interested in proposed solutions from any and all (you don’t have to be in the ID camp), but am especially interested in solutions by ID advocates, since y’all are saying that the solution is already implicitly defined in the statement of the problem (finding shortest connected networks).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Support your claim or continue to be laughed at. TBH that'll happen either way but at least this way you get to keep a little dignity.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 09 2012,04:39

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 08 2012,20:20)
Status: Abandoned. After making ignorant and bizarre claims about computational complexity theory ("It's a collection of AI techniques"), Gaulin decided to stop responding to requests to demonstrate these claims.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And on that point, although I agree that I could have been more precise, if you look again at exactly what I said then it should be more obvious that I was calling attention to what I wanted you to notice in the Wikipedia link (all the nonintelligent AI techniques that are in it).

   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,18:49)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,18:03)
Come on, Gary. Just admit that you don't know the least thing about computational complexity theory and you won't have to make up gibberish like that. Hint: it helps if the gibberish at least has some keywords from the topic at hand. Yours doesn't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a collection of AI techniques, many of which I have already modeled/tested.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._theory >

That is all well and good for someone new to AI but it is not "cognitive science".

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......science >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My opinion on this has not changed.  The unfair and unrealistic comparisons only lead to your being easily fooled by unrealistic nonsense.  You are therefore putting plastic artificial flowers under the microscope in order to support your biological conclusions.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 09 2012,05:07

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 09 2012,04:32)
Why don't you take the TSP challenge Gary? It's from 2006 but you'd be the first ID supporter to attempt it AFAIK.

< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....gn.html >

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will announce the winners (if any) in a week’s time, and also will present the answer that Evolution came up with. I’m interested in proposed solutions from any and all (you don’t have to be in the ID camp), but am especially interested in solutions by ID advocates, since y’all are saying that the solution is already implicitly defined in the statement of the problem (finding shortest connected networks).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Support your claim or continue to be laughed at. TBH that'll happen either way but at least this way you get to keep a little dignity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have far more important things to do than be muddled by another math based problem that does not pertain to "intelligence" or "intelligent cause".  The power of your laughter is now in my favor anyway, because in the real scientific arena if that's all you got then you were already defeated.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’m giving Intelligent Design proponents (and everyone else!) a chance to actually Design something!

As you recall, my algorithm involves finding Steiner Trees, the shortest networks of straight-line segments connecting a given collection of fixed points. These networks may include additional variable “Steiner Points” where segments may meet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I were you then I would be focusing on the scientific problems that this Theory of Intelligent Design presents to your camp.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 09 2012,05:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I am entitled to my honest opinion of how "realistic" EA'a and GA's are.  That's why I never found them very scientifically interesting, and instead experimented with simple cognitive models that can outperform them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Liar.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 09 2012,05:18

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,05:07)

I have far more important things to do than be muddled by another math based problem that does not pertain to "intelligence" or "intelligent cause".  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't you get it? According to *you* you have already done this.

You said:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I am entitled to my honest opinion of how "realistic" EA'a and GA's are.  That's why I never found them very scientifically interesting, and instead experimented with simple cognitive models that can outperform them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How do you know your "simple cognitive models" can outperform a GA if you've yet to try that?

I take it then that your "opinion" is more important than "observation".

No wonder you are unable to understand how science works.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The power of your laughter is now in my favor anyway, because in the real scientific arena if that's all you got then you were already defeated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, 100+ years of observations (i.e. science) are on my side. What have you got apart from empty claims and lies?

Nothing.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I were you then I would be focusing on the scientific problems that this Theory of Intelligent Design presents to your camp.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For example?


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 09 2012,05:22

No delivery of substantial support of any of the claims = expect to see the list posted again later.


Gary on the citric acid cycle claim:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

There is no other place that I know of where this is documented. [...]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, exactly. Nobody else makes the same bizarre mistakes that you make when describing the citric acid cycle.

Gary on comparison of his code to evolutionary computation:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You are again demanding documentation that does not yet exist.  And I am entitled to my honest opinion of how "realistic" EA'a and GA's are.  That's why I never found them very scientifically interesting, and instead experimented with simple cognitive models that can outperform them.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You didn't keep your notes from when you compared them? Or you lied to us when you told us that you had already compared them? And if you never compared them, you have no basis to say what "outperforms" what. Basically, your statement here says that you know nothing about evolutionary computation, can't be bothered to learn anything about evolutionary computation, but still want people to think it means something when you spout ignorant opinions about relative merit involving evolutionary computation.


Gary:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And on that point, although I agree that I could have been more precise, if you look again at exactly what I said then it should be more obvious that I was calling attention to what I wanted you to notice in the Wikipedia link (all the nonintelligent AI techniques that are in it).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I pointed out that you were wrong on that, too. Computational complexity theory is not comprised of AI techniques. Computational complexity theory is applied to evaluating the performance of AI techniques and all other algorithmic approaches to problems. You made a basic error, were corrected, and don't even have enough comprehension of your ignorance on the topic to appreciate that it was an error. If you did, you wouldn't have just repeated that very same error.

Gary on his code being able to "easily solve" the TSP and the implications that has for the central unresolved problem in computational complexity theory:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You sure like to nitpick.  I gave you an example of a fly (intelligence) that just keeps bashing into a window until it knocks itself senseless and never gets out, even where there is a nearby exit.  If that is not utterly being unable to find any solution at all to the Traveling Salesman Problem then you tell me how well it did at finding a solution to the problem after it is one more dead bug on the windowsill that made it no further than that.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm interested in your claim that your code can "easily solve" the TSP. I'm not interested in irrelevant anecdotes about flies. And nothing in the above says anything about the capability that you have claimed that your code does have. Abandoned is a soft word for what you've done with that claim.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 09 2012,06:57

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 09 2012,05:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I am entitled to my honest opinion of how "realistic" EA'a and GA's are.  That's why I never found them very scientifically interesting, and instead experimented with simple cognitive models that can outperform them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"True, everybody's entitled to their opinion, but when your opinion is based on misinformation and you're incapable of actually getting a clue about what's really going on in the world around you, your opinion isn't worth very much."
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 09 2012,07:29

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 09 2012,05:22)
..... Or you lied to us when you told us that you had already compared them?...........
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I already told you the theory is for experimenting with intelligence and studying intelligent cause.  Therefore your other demands of it are still totally irrelevant.

If the best that you and you know who can do is endlessly present the same worn out semantic arguments while trying to claim that I am a liar then I would be a fool to waste my time entertaining you while you try to drag me down with insults.  You did not even have the scientific candor to study the theory before commenting on it, and instead pretended you understood the whole thing when you were in fact so clueless you trashed a theory that was not even the Theory of Intelligent Design.  You have no idea how much of a kick in the face that actually is, bully…
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 09 2012,07:35

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,07:29)

 I already told you the theory is for experimenting with intelligence and studying intelligent cause.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And I already told you that the TSP can be used as a standard test to measure intelligence. You seem afraid to put your own theory to that test, I wonder why...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Therefore your other demands of it are still totally irrelevant.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The demand is that you support the claim you yourself made. That's all. Nothing more or less.
If you don't want to do that then get used to this treatment.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the best that you and you know who can do is endlessly present the same worn out semantic arguments while trying to claim that I am a liar then I would be a fool to waste my time entertaining you while you try to drag me down with insults.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But you *are* a liar, and provably so. Nobody is arguing against your theory, they are simply asking you to provide support for a claim *you* made. This whining won't distract you know. Been there, seen that.

You made a claim.
You are now pretending you did not.
You are a liar!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 You did not even have the scientific candor to study the theory before commenting on it, and instead pretended you understood the whole thing when you were in fact so clueless you trashed a theory that was not even the Theory of Intelligent Design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Irrelevant. You made a specific claim, when called on it you pretend it's irrelevant yet it's your claim!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have no idea how much of a kick in the face that actually is, bully…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Aww, don't cry! Why don't you go and find a forum where nobody knows anything about science and then you can bask in the adulation of the ignorant? You can then make as many claims as you like and nobody will call you on them.


Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 09 2012,08:29

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,15:29)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 09 2012,05:22)
..... Or you lied to us when you told us that you had already compared them?...........
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I already told you the theory is for experimenting with intelligence and studying intelligent cause.  Therefore your other demands of it are still totally irrelevant.

If the best that you and you know who can do is endlessly present the same worn out semantic arguments while trying to claim that I am a liar then I would be a fool to waste my time entertaining you while you try to drag me down with insults.  You did not even have the scientific candor to study the theory before commenting on it, and instead pretended you understood the whole thing when you were in fact so clueless you trashed a theory that was not even the Theory of Intelligent Design.  You have no idea how much of a kick in the face that actually is, bully…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stand in front of a mirror and read that backwards.
You are projecting GG.

Oh and by the way define your use of the word 'intelligence' specifically the physical processes if it is an external extant device and your evidence to support such an assertion.

If you replace your use of the word 'intelligence' which seems to have some private and magical quality unique to you (and all other creationists) with the word 'life', 'god' or 'je ne sais quoi' what do we have?

Nothing, admit it GG.


A dog turd in the street has more use than your apeal to authority.

Pathetic but true.

YOUR semantics are meaningless and have no useful scientifice value.

Your misuse of the term 'scientific theory' produces no pedictions, a KEY FEATURE of a scientific theory.

None what so ever.

Zero.

You bitch on and on.

While we do not even have a hint from your bibliographies.

You have some papers right?

No?

I thought not.

Zilch.
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 09 2012,08:34

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,05:29)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 09 2012,05:22)
..... Or you lied to us when you told us that you had already compared them?...........
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I already told you the theory is for experimenting with intelligence and studying intelligent cause.  Therefore your other demands of it are still totally irrelevant.

If the best that you and you know who can do is endlessly present the same worn out semantic arguments while trying to claim that I am a liar then I would be a fool to waste my time entertaining you while you try to drag me down with insults.  You did not even have the scientific candor to study the theory before commenting on it, and instead pretended you understood the whole thing when you were in fact so clueless you trashed a theory that was not even the Theory of Intelligent Design.  You have no idea how much of a kick in the face that actually is, bully…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary, you said:

"You did not even have the scientific candor to study the theory before commenting on it, and instead pretended you understood the whole thing when you were in fact so clueless you trashed a theory that was not even the Theory of Intelligent Design."

I'm trying to understand your "theory" and have asked you some questions in an attempt to understand what it is that you're positing and what the differences are, if any, between your "theory" and the "ID inference", but you haven't answered most of my questions.

A few things you should realize:

Your avoidance of some questions doesn't help you.

Answers from you that are irrelevant or incoherent don't help you.

People here (including me) have seen and heard enormous amounts of "ID" bullshit and we have finely tuned "ID" bullshit detectors and pretty short fuses. Unless you have something that is explained well and can be tested and holds up to scrutiny you're not likely to get very far here or anywhere else where scientists and science supporters hang out.  

Yeah, it's a very tough crowd here but if your "theory" can be demonstrated to do something positive or lead to something that can do something positive you have a chance at winning over the crowd. If, on the other hand, you've got nothing but another lame attempt to push a useless, non-scientific, religious/political agenda you're going to be treated accordingly.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 09 2012,08:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are therefore putting plastic artificial flowers under the microscope in order to support your biological conclusions.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What, you mean as opposed to digital ones?

Clown.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 09 2012,08:46

It’s also an insult to try making it seem that I do not already know that the Traveling Salesman Problem is one of many thousands of ways to test for intelligence. But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself are not good enough for the ones who demand I beat their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to. They only care about tests which will at the same time prove that a pocket calculator or simple math algorithm is more intelligent than a human. In science like this, such tests are simply unacceptable. And I am not going to play games with ones who demand that they be allowed to cheat.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 09 2012,08:58

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,08:46)
It’s also an insult to try making it seem that I do not already know that the Traveling Salesman Problem is one of many thousands of ways to test for intelligence. But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself are not good enough for the ones who demand I beat their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to. They only care about tests which will at the same time prove that a pocket calculator or simple math algorithm is more intelligent than a human. In science like this, such tests are simply unacceptable. And I am not going to play games with ones who demand that they be allowed to cheat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But that's what you've been saying.  By claiming that bacteria have 'memory' and can 'choose' to adapt and that embryos can modify their own genome, you are saying that they are intelligent as humans.

In fact, they are more intelligent than humans, because no human has the ability to alter its own genome or choose to adapt to a changing environment (I refer here to biological adaptation, not putting on a sweater).

It's the extension of your own claims.

Let me ask this, is a slime mold intelligent according to you?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 09 2012,09:12

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,08:46)

It’s also an insult to try making it seem that I do not already know that the Traveling Salesman Problem is one of many thousands of ways to test for intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, rather it's your claim that your "intelligence" can solve the TSP. Your claim.
All you have to do is provide proof for your own claim.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself are not good enough for the ones who demand I beat their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BZZZ, wrong:
< http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....3900382 >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Optimal foraging models are examined that assume animals forage for discrete point resources on a plane and attempt to minimize their travel distance between resources. This problem is similar to the well-known traveling salesman problem: A salesman must choose the shortest path from his home office to all cities on his itinerary and back to his home office again. The traveling salesman problem is in a class of enigmatic problems, called NP-complete, which can be so difficult to solve that animals might be incapable of finding the best solution. Two major results of this analysis are: (1) The simple foraging strategy of always moving to the closest resource site does surprisingly well. More sophisticated strategies of “looking ahead” a small number of steps, choosing the shortest path, then taking a step, do worse if all the resource sites are visited, but do slightly better (less than 10%) if not all the resource sites are visited. (2) Short cyclical foraging routes resulted when resources were allowed to renew. This is suggested as an alternative explanation for “trap-lining” in animals that forage for discrete, widely separated resources.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://chittkalab.sbcs.qmul.ac.uk/2010.......Nat.pdf >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bees’ tendency to visit patches in
their discovery order decreased with experience. Instead, they optimized their ?ight distances by rearranging ?ower visitation sequences. This resulted in the development of a primary route (trapline) and two or three less frequently used secondary routes. Bees
consistently used these routes after overnight breaks while occasionally exploring novel possibilities. We discuss how maintaining some
level of route ?exibility could allow traplining animals to cope with dynamic routing problems, analogous to the well-known traveling salesman problem.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They only care about tests which will at the same time prove that a pocket calculator or simple math algorithm is more intelligent than a human.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I care about the claim that you made and the fact you cannot support it.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In science like this, such tests are simply unacceptable. And I am not going to play games with ones who demand that they be allowed to cheat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Better tell that to the authors of those two papers plus the myriad of others on similar lines.
Fool and a liar?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 09 2012,09:23

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,06:07)
If I were you then I would be focusing on the scientific problems that this Theory of Intelligent Design presents to your camp.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


on a blog?



if you don't give a shit enough about your "theory" to even try to publish an abstract of the thing in the journal of negative results, what makes you think you have presented any "scientific problems" to "camp"?

I mean, you can't even explain what the hell you're on about here, or even justify any of the silly claims you've made here in rapid fire repetition.  So, you have seriously overestimated the quantity of fucks that the world gives about your interpretation of the shadows dancing on the wall of your cave

But, things might change, eh?  I recommend you add more font colors to your flow chart
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 09 2012,09:25

Perhaps if we all put our tinfoil hats on then sit under a cardboard pyramid all would become clear.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 09 2012,09:25

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 09 2012,06:22)
Abandoned is a soft word for what you've done with that claim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 09 2012,09:59

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,06:46)
It’s also an insult to try making it seem that I do not already know that the Traveling Salesman Problem is one of many thousands of ways to test for intelligence. But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself are not good enough for the ones who demand I beat their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to. They only care about tests which will at the same time prove that a pocket calculator or simple math algorithm is more intelligent than a human. In science like this, such tests are simply unacceptable. And I am not going to play games with ones who demand that they be allowed to cheat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself..."  (my emphasis)

Gary, what is the it that you're referring to?
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 09 2012,11:24

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 08 2012,17:05)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2012,16:55)
Where is the memory in a bacteria?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From theory:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
REQUIREMENT #2 of 4 – SENSORY ADDRESSABLE MEMORY

E.coli senses chemoeffector gradients in temporal fashion (recall series of readings/conditions back in time) by comparing current concentrations to those encountered over the past few seconds of travel, a single element reversible methylation temporal memory, to navigate its environment.

Cellular (and molecular intelligence) can include “plasmid exchange” memories which is a very useful form of communication between members of a bacterial colony where all share tiny circular loops of genetic information, mostly only share with its own kind.  When one finds a useful solution to a given environmental situation all others around soon know it ahead of time.  The entire colony of bacteria cells functions as a single organism.  In plasmid exchange cells conjugate, bump into another then wait for plasmids they do not have yet to be copied/learned then look for another to conjugate with.  To a cell, some plasmids can be like a harmful disabling/traumatizing parasite.

Only germline cells that divide to become egg and sperm cells must accurately copy the full genetic memory.  After germline cells fuse (fertilization) they begin to modify their genome as much as is necessary to achieve differentiation into a specialized cell. It is here changing in morphology in response to its environment to be able to survive one cellular lifetime.  During development of the organism many kinds of cells (muscle and skin cells, neurons, etc.) with many cellular intelligence behaviors are produced by the germline cells which remain the same through time to produce the eggs and sperm of another generation.

See:
An overview of E. coli chemotaxis, Parkinson Lab, Department Of Biology – University Of Utah
< http://chemotaxis.biology.utah.edu/Parkins....is.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You may want to explain to us where and when intelligence acts during the fluctuation test.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 09 2012,12:36

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 09 2012,09:59)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,06:46)
It’s also an insult to try making it seem that I do not already know that the Traveling Salesman Problem is one of many thousands of ways to test for intelligence. But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself are not good enough for the ones who demand I beat their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to. They only care about tests which will at the same time prove that a pocket calculator or simple math algorithm is more intelligent than a human. In science like this, such tests are simply unacceptable. And I am not going to play games with ones who demand that they be allowed to cheat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself..."  (my emphasis)

Gary, what is the it that you're referring to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The "it" is the intelligence in the simulation being monitored/tested to find out how well it's doing:


< https://sites.google.com/site.......een.png >

In this example is the two lobed brain configuration, with the right lobe now active.  At this moment in time it's taking two good guesses based upon what was working before.  Green line is showing it's having little problem learning how to keep itself fed, but all indications are that it would greatly benefit from having touch/taste buds to feel around with it's mouth.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 09 2012,12:57

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,12:36)
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 09 2012,09:59)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,06:46)
It’s also an insult to try making it seem that I do not already know that the Traveling Salesman Problem is one of many thousands of ways to test for intelligence. But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself are not good enough for the ones who demand I beat their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to. They only care about tests which will at the same time prove that a pocket calculator or simple math algorithm is more intelligent than a human. In science like this, such tests are simply unacceptable. And I am not going to play games with ones who demand that they be allowed to cheat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself..."  (my emphasis)

Gary, what is the it that you're referring to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The "it" is the intelligence in the simulation being monitored/tested to find out how well it's doing:


< https://sites.google.com/site.......een.png >

In this example is the two lobed brain configuration, with the right lobe now active.  At this moment in time it's taking two good guesses based upon what was working before.  Green line is showing it's having little problem learning how to keep itself fed, but all indications are that it would greatly benefit from having touch/taste buds to feel around with it's mouth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought you said it wouldn't be right to create an intelligence and then pull the plug on it.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 09 2012,20:10

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,08:46)
[...] But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself are not good enough for the ones who demand I beat their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to. [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, Gary tells yet another whopper. I guess Gary didn't actually read my paper that I gave him the link to < a while back >.

< Published article on evolving effective strategies for movement >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Abstract— Even the simplest of organisms may exhibit low-level intelligent behaviors in their directed movements, such as in foraging. We used the Avida digital evolution research platform to explore the evolution of movement strategies in a model environment with a single local resource that diffuses to produce a gradient, which organisms have the ability to follow. Three common strategies that evolved, Cockroach, Drunkard, and Climber, exhibit how both environmental constraints and historical contingency play a role in the emergence of intelligent behaviors. The evolved programs are also suitable for use in controllers on robots.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Another characteristic of intelligence is the ability to generalize a strategy and use it in a new situation. An evolved Climber could successfully move to resource peaks set in new locations (see Figure 6).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

V. CONCLUSIONS

In testing the capability of evolutionary computation to produce effective methods utilizing movement strategies to intelligently exploit spatially-distributed resources, our results show that such strategies do emerge and that in about 12% of shorter runs and in 80% of longer runs the final movement strategy used by the majority of the population at the end of the run is in the class of optimal response for our environment, that of gradient ascent.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What excuse will Gary come up with this time?
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 09 2012,20:16

Gary, in your "theory" you say:

"Cellular (and molecular intelligence) can include “plasmid exchange” memories which is a very useful form of communication between members of a bacterial colony where all share tiny circular loops of genetic information, mostly only share with its own kind.  When one finds a useful solution to a given environmental situation all others around soon know it ahead of time."  (my emphasis)

That wording doesn't make sense to me, and what do you mean by "ahead of time"? Ahead of time for what? Maybe I'm misunderstanding but it looks like you're saying that the "solution" is known by the entire colony before the "solution" is shared with the entire colony.





.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 09 2012,22:32

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,07:29)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 09 2012,05:22)
..... Or you lied to us when you told us that you had already compared them?...........
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I already told you the theory is for experimenting with intelligence and studying intelligent cause.  Therefore your other demands of it are still totally irrelevant.

If the best that you and you know who can do is endlessly present the same worn out semantic arguments while trying to claim that I am a liar then I would be a fool to waste my time entertaining you while you try to drag me down with insults.  You did not even have the scientific candor to study the theory before commenting on it, and instead pretended you understood the whole thing when you were in fact so clueless you trashed a theory that was not even the Theory of Intelligent Design.  You have no idea how much of a kick in the face that actually is, bully…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I haven't made demands of "it" (your so-called theory). I haven't looked over your full document, and have not said word one in speculation about it. You once again state a falsehood about me, that I have commented on your so-called theory. I have not, and will not until such time as I review your current document. You may apologize now.

I have asked for substantiation of specific things that you have asserted to be true, things whose truth-value can be assessed without reference to anything beyond that particular context. You have chosen to defer providing substantiation even where your words state that you already have that substantiation in hand. When you say that you have made a comparison, and then say that no such documentation exists, you should be able to admit that there is a legitimate question about which of two contradictory pieces of information is correct.

I take it that peer-review is an unfamiliar concept to you?
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 09 2012,23:12

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 09 2012,20:10)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,08:46)
[...] But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself are not good enough for the ones who demand I beat their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to. [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, Gary tells yet another whopper. I guess Gary didn't actually read my paper that I gave him the link to < a while back >.

< Published article on evolving effective strategies for movement >
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Abstract— Even the simplest of organisms may exhibit low-level intelligent behaviors in their directed movements, such as in foraging. We used the Avida digital evolution research platform to explore the evolution of movement strategies in a model environment with a single local resource that diffuses to produce a gradient, which organisms have the ability to follow. Three common strategies that evolved, Cockroach, Drunkard, and Climber, exhibit how both environmental constraints and historical contingency play a role in the emergence of intelligent behaviors. The evolved programs are also suitable for use in controllers on robots.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another characteristic of intelligence is the ability to generalize a strategy and use it in a new situation. An evolved Climber could successfully move to resource peaks set in new locations (see Figure 6).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

V. CONCLUSIONS

In testing the capability of evolutionary computation to produce effective methods utilizing movement strategies to intelligently exploit spatially-distributed resources, our results show that such strategies do emerge and that in about 12% of shorter runs and in 80% of longer runs the final movement strategy used by the majority of the population at the end of the run is in the class of optimal response for our environment, that of gradient ascent.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What excuse will Gary come up with this time?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I ran across that paper before while searching the web for information on biological intelligence.  I honestly found it uninteresting and unconvincing due to problems which include: No testable operational definition for intelligence. No systematic method qualifying intelligence which may exist at any level, i.e. multicellular, cellular, molecular, etc. No schematics showing biologically plausible circuits that are supposedly being “evolved”. Rehash of similar EA work I have seen before that makes assumptions which might not be true, such as altruism requiring special circuit/circuitry.  It’s also not useful for explaining how intelligent causation works, therefore showing one paper like this does not impress me.

But seeing you brought up the topic, here are some of my biology related favorites which I did like enough to save the links to, so that you can see what I do like to study. And it starts off with the link to the Parkinson Lab Overview of Chemotaxis page that was down (which led to even more accusations of dishonesty) but it's now back online!

< http://chemotaxis.biology.utah.edu/Parkins....is.html >
< http://www.pnas.org/content....emental >
< http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online.....16.html >
< http://www.pnas.org/content....63.full >
< http://www.pnas.org/content....t....11 >
< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........2691949 >
< http://www.plosbiology.org/article....0040138 >
< http://www.jneurosci.org/content....ull.pdf >
< http://www.ini.ethz.ch/~conrad....imp.PDF >
< http://www.ini.ethz.ch/~conrad....imp.PDF >
< http://biomimetic.pbworks.com/f....so....son.pdf >
< http://www.frontiersin.org/neural_........ull >
< http://www.jneurosci.org/content....ull.pdf >
< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........2151524 >
< http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online.....e....n1 >
< http://ec.europa.eu/informa....e_2.pdf >
< http://www.insectscience.org/10.58......-58.pdf >
< http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article....1000879 >
< http://www.eyedesignbook.com/index.h....ex.html >
< http://www.hpc.unm.edu/~karen.....326.pdf >
< http://www.jneurosci.org/content....96.full >
< http://www.jneurosci.org/content....57.long >
< http://learnmem.cshlp.org/content....11.full >
< http://www.cell.com/neuron.....0010731 >
< http://ac.els-cdn.com/S089662....825a6e6 >
< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........2677239 >
< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........2571118 >
< http://www.jneurosci.org/content....df+html >
< http://www.mindcreators.com/2DInsec....tor.htm >
< http://www.mindcreators.com/2DInsec....tor.htm >
< http://www.izhikevich.org/publica....els.pdf >
< http://www.wessnitzer.net/academi....int.pdf >
< http://www.c-s-p.org/Flyers.....ple.pdf >
< http://www.pnas.org/content....95.full >
< http://www.pnas.org/content....35.full >
< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed.....6600853 >
< http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.......ina.pdf >
< http://www.cis.rit.edu/people.....p1.html >
< http://archopht.jamanetwork.com/article....=413723 >
< http://vision.arc.nasa.gov/personn....nn....m >
< http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki.......ception >
< http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin....Doc.pdf >
< http://web.mit.edu/bcs........-5.html >
< http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content....93.full >
< http://web.mit.edu/bcs........25.html >
< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........2430089 >
< http://www.journalofvision.org/content....nt....6 >
< http://www.newscientist.com/article....dn15068 >
< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites......6129892 >
< http://www.plosbiology.org/article....0030396 >
< http://www.world-science.net/exclusi....frm.htm >
< http://www.pnas.org/content....ull.pdf >
< http://jcb.rupress.org/content....df+html >
< http://jcs.biologists.org/content....65.full >
< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........1562375 >
< http://thesis.library.caltech.edu/2293.......sis.pdf >
< http://jb.asm.org/content....56.full >
< http://www.pnas.org/content....89.full >
< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........=pubmed >
< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........=pubmed >
< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........MC94809 >
< http://www.plosbiology.org/article....entner1 >
< http://regulondb.ccg.unam.mx/index.j....dex.jsp >
< http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article....35.g001 >
< http://www.cellmigration.org/science....x.shtml >
< http://www.extension.org/pages......odgrass >
< http://www.pc.rhul.ac.uk/staff......1_3.pdf >
< http://www.neurobiologie.fu-berlin.de/menzel.....CNc.pdf >
< http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb17.......homberg >
< http://ndeaa.jpl.nasa.gov/ndeaa-p....-99.pdf >
< http://bioteaching.wordpress.com/2010.......ligence >
< http://www.neurobiologie.fu-berlin.de/beebrai....lt.html >
< http://www.biolchem.ucla.edu/labs.......sc.html >
< http://www.cns.nyu.edu/~msl.......nce.pdf >
< http://www.frontiersin.org/systems........ull >
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 09 2012,23:43

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 09 2012,20:16)
Gary, in your "theory" you say:

"Cellular (and molecular intelligence) can include “plasmid exchange” memories which is a very useful form of communication between members of a bacterial colony where all share tiny circular loops of genetic information, mostly only share with its own kind.  When one finds a useful solution to a given environmental situation all others around soon know it ahead of time."  (my emphasis)

That wording doesn't make sense to me, and what do you mean by "ahead of time"? Ahead of time for what? Maybe I'm misunderstanding but it looks like you're saying that the "solution" is known by the entire colony before the "solution" is shared with the entire colony.





.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And example of that are plasmids found locally in one area but not others which allow digestion of nylon, detoxification of toxins/pesticides (where in the gut of insects the insect become resistant to pesticides used by the farmer in his particular field) such that bacteria (or other organism that carries them) are all set to join the others in feasting on what would otherwise not be edible or would make them sick, without first having acquired the plasmid upon their arrival there.

I'll see what I can do to improve that part.  I agree it could use some elaboration.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 10 2012,00:29

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,23:12)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 09 2012,20:10)
                 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,08:46)
[...] But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself are not good enough for the ones who demand I beat their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to. [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, Gary tells yet another whopper. I guess Gary didn't actually read my paper that I gave him the link to < a while back >.

< Published article on evolving effective strategies for movement >
             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Abstract— Even the simplest of organisms may exhibit low-level intelligent behaviors in their directed movements, such as in foraging. We used the Avida digital evolution research platform to explore the evolution of movement strategies in a model environment with a single local resource that diffuses to produce a gradient, which organisms have the ability to follow. Three common strategies that evolved, Cockroach, Drunkard, and Climber, exhibit how both environmental constraints and historical contingency play a role in the emergence of intelligent behaviors. The evolved programs are also suitable for use in controllers on robots.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another characteristic of intelligence is the ability to generalize a strategy and use it in a new situation. An evolved Climber could successfully move to resource peaks set in new locations (see Figure 6).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

V. CONCLUSIONS

In testing the capability of evolutionary computation to produce effective methods utilizing movement strategies to intelligently exploit spatially-distributed resources, our results show that such strategies do emerge and that in about 12% of shorter runs and in 80% of longer runs the final movement strategy used by the majority of the population at the end of the run is in the class of optimal response for our environment, that of gradient ascent.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What excuse will Gary come up with this time?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I ran across that paper before while searching the web for information on biological intelligence.  I honestly found it uninteresting and unconvincing due to problems which include: No testable operational definition for intelligence. No systematic method qualifying intelligence which may exist at any level, i.e. multicellular, cellular, molecular, etc. No schematics showing biologically plausible circuits that are supposedly being “evolved”. Rehash of similar EA work I have seen before that makes assumptions which might not be true, such as altruism requiring special circuit/circuitry.  It’s also not useful for explaining how intelligent causation works, therefore showing one paper like this does not impress me.

[...]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's pretty brazen, Gary. You now say that you had full knowledge of my paper, and yet you still claimed things that are false to fact.

Your original statement:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

[...] their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You might not like my work, but it does directly address the topic that you claim it did not.

And the "even have to" is quite egregiously false to fact.

Now you claim new false things.

Gary:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No testable operational definition for intelligence.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Paper:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If intelligence is taken to be the increased frequency of emission of adaptive behavior under novel stimuli, as is seen in studies of animal behavior, Cockroach either does not qualify as such, since all stimuli yield the same behavior, or may be seen as a small relative improvement on a random walk, since it does exploit the conditions implicit in a bounded grid for movement.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not only did I provide a commonly-used testable operational definition, I evaluated evolved strategies against it. Refer above to the quote about testing Climber Avidians in novel environments in addition to the quote just previous.

Gary:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Rehash of similar EA work I have seen before that makes assumptions which might not be true, such as altruism requiring special circuit/circuitry.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, Gary; show me where in my paper I say anything about an altruism circuit. Go ahead, I can wait. And will wait forever, since your claim is, once again, a false one.

As for "rehash", it is certainly possible that I missed a citation that I should have found. Please substantiate your claim by providing the full bibliographic references of  uncited and earlier evolutionary computation papers whose topic is the evolution of effective methods for movement of an agent relative to a resource gradient. (You should pay attention to authors in the "et al.", since I'm part of "et al." in the Grabowski et al. 2008 paper.)

I'm sure that there's some common word that describes someone who over and over prefers to tell falsehoods rather than truth.

As for various other points, my paper wasn't aimed at doing whatever it is that you think that you are doing. I think I was pretty clear about the aim of the paper:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Our interest requires a more open-ended approach than is often used in studies of computational intelligence. In most cases, there is a specific function of interest to be accomplished, and the means or process by which that function is acquired is of less interest than the fact of either solving, or approximately solving, it. Instead, in looking at the evolution of intelligent behavior, our primary interest is in finding out by what means less capable agents give rise to those able to appropriately exploit prevailing conditions.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It is still a paper whose topic is intelligent foraging, where the digital organisms "had to" forage in order to gain relative advantage over other digital organisms, contrary to your false claim.


Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 10 2012,06:10

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 10 2012,00:29)

That's pretty brazen, Gary. You now say that you had full knowledge of my paper, and yet you still claimed things that are false to fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My work requires far more than "movement strategies" and artificially "evolved programs".

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 10 2012,00:29)
Your original statement:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[...] their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You might not like my work, but it does directly address the topic that you claim it did not.

And the "even have to" is quite egregiously false to fact.

Now you claim new false things.

Gary:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No testable operational definition for intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paper:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If intelligence is taken to be the increased frequency of emission of adaptive behavior under novel stimuli, as is seen in studies of animal behavior, Cockroach either does not qualify as such, since all stimuli yield the same behavior, or may be seen as a small relative improvement on a random walk, since it does exploit the conditions implicit in a bounded grid for movement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not only did I provide a commonly-used testable operational definition, I evaluated evolved strategies against it. Refer above to the quote about testing Climber Avidians in novel environments in addition to the quote just previous.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wikipedia has a list of some of the common definitions:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ligence >

The definition of intelligence is controversial. Groups of scientists have stated the following:

from "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" (1994), an editorial statement by fifty-two researchers:
A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.[5]

from "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" (1995), a report published by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association:
Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person's intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions, and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen, somewhat different, definitions.[6][7]

Alfred Binet: Judgment, otherwise called "good sense," "practical sense," "initiative," the faculty of adapting one's self to circumstances ... auto-critique.[8]

David Wechsler: The aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment.[9]

Lloyd Humphreys: "...the resultant of the process of acquiring, storing in memory, retrieving, combining, comparing, and using in new contexts information and conceptual skills."[10]

Cyril Burt: Innate general cognitive ability[11]

Howard Gardner: To my mind, a human intellectual competence must entail a set of skills of problem solving — enabling the individual to resolve genuine problems or difficulties that he or she encounters and, when appropriate, to create an effective product — and must also entail the potential for finding or creating problems — and thereby laying the groundwork for the acquisition of new knowledge.[12]

Linda Gottfredson: The ability to deal with cognitive complexity.[13]

Sternberg & Salter: Goal-directed adaptive behavior.[14]

Reuven Feuerstein: The theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability describes intelligence as "the unique propensity of human beings to change or modify the structure of their cognitive functioning to adapt to the changing demands of a life situation."[15]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The operational definition you gave is another fuzzy definition with no systematic way to reliably qualify a system as being intelligent or not. It might be good enough for your peers and for a science paper but the theory I have been working on needs to be absolutely precise, with no generalizations or uncertainty that in your case could not even definitively conclude whether a cockroach is intelligent or not.

What I did find very useful in regards to cockroach intelligence is in this excellent video that demonstrated what I was studying in science papers:

< John Bender and Roy Ritzmann - Central Control of Insect Locomotion >

The circuit schematic in the Intelligence Design Lab (see earlier reply) uses the same Left/Right and Forward/Reverse system that is described in the video.

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 10 2012,00:29)

Gary:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rehash of similar EA work I have seen before that makes assumptions which might not be true, such as altruism requiring special circuit/circuitry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, Gary; show me where in my paper I say anything about an altruism circuit. Go ahead, I can wait. And will wait forever, since your claim is, once again, a false one.

As for "rehash", it is certainly possible that I missed a citation that I should have found. Please substantiate your claim by providing the full bibliographic references of  uncited and earlier evolutionary computation papers whose topic is the evolution of effective methods for movement of an agent relative to a resource gradient. (You should pay attention to authors in the "et al.", since I'm part of "et al." in the Grabowski et al. 2008 paper.)

I'm sure that there's some common word that describes someone who over and over prefers to tell falsehoods rather than truth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You sure do like to condemn.  But whatever, here is a paper on "Evolution of Altruism" that was a big sensation to others in the ID controversy but when I saw a special "Share token" circuit I quickly lost interest even though it was still a little bit interesting from a robotics standpoint:

< http://www.plosbiology.org/article....15.g001 >

From what I saw in a forum (not sure which one(s)) where the paper was applauded, none questioned whether it was truly representative of biology or anything even evolved. It looked to me like a circuit that was specially designed to artificially develop an analogy to altruism (therefore it did) but is not the real thing. All that the promoters of the Darwinian paradigm needed to see were the keywords "Evolution of Altruism" and of course they were all excited by the paper.

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 10 2012,00:29)
As for various other points, my paper wasn't aimed at doing whatever it is that you think that you are doing. I think I was pretty clear about the aim of the paper:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Our interest requires a more open-ended approach than is often used in studies of computational intelligence. In most cases, there is a specific function of interest to be accomplished, and the means or process by which that function is acquired is of less interest than the fact of either solving, or approximately solving, it. Instead, in looking at the evolution of intelligent behavior, our primary interest is in finding out by what means less capable agents give rise to those able to appropriately exploit prevailing conditions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is still a paper whose topic is intelligent foraging, where the digital organisms "had to" forage in order to gain relative advantage over other digital organisms, contrary to your false claim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where are the critters with a mouth, antennae, eyes, etc. and their circuit diagrams which show confidence levels needed to gauge their overall state of mind and success while foraging?

It's all that was not included which made it another EA paper that likely does not very well represent the reality of how living things work or "evolved". You say they are are intelligently foraging but the paper does not even show them foraging for anything, and all else I need to see for it to be credible. Graphs are here unacceptable. And for origin of life research, I have no idea how you would be able to step-wise go from a particle system that models atoms/matter to an intelligent living thing with artificially "evolved programs".  But at least your paper has excellent grammar.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 10 2012,07:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But at least your paper has excellent grammar.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And is, er, published.

Unlike your work.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 10 2012,11:18

Actually, quality hit-wise, the computer model and included theory is doing better by being published at Planet Source Code than it would in an average science journal. And PSC does not care about typos and a little bad grammar, or has a policy to immediately reject the theory because of what it is. I also still have the growing page-length problem that now fills at least half an issue, cannot afford publishing fees, more illustrations are needed to walk the biased (who don’t care about source code and such) through this, and so on..

All in all, I’m probably better off leading the undermining of the pompous part of the scientific political system that literally shuts-out self-learners like me with rules which only allow the academically entitled (or corporations) to receive funding, and credit where due. So as with my little low-powered < W I Don’t Know radio station > that helped make big things happen I’ll just keep transmitting on the WWW until something really-big comes to me, that makes it worth my while to take what I now have to the next level. From all the comments from the young on YouTube about music/culture having become boring and they wish they were back in time, my taking this newest (after Grunge) Seattle based culture-war up a few more notches might be just what the artists need to < bring back the good clean fun of the last culture-war > I was stuck in the middle of, that I now miss the best of. So hopefully none here mind the mayhem, too much, or literally go crazy from it!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 10 2012,11:20

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,05:07)
If I were you then I would be focusing on the scientific problems that this Theory of Intelligent Design presents to your camp.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What problems would those be?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 10 2012,11:39

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 10 2012,11:18)

Actually, quality hit-wise, the computer model and included theory is doing better by being published at Planet Source Code than it would in an average science journal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In what way?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And PSC does not care about typos and a little bad grammar, or has a policy to immediately reject the theory because of what it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What publications have that policy then?

hint: Nobody who makes that claim has ever been able to answer, instead they simply ignore the question.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I also still have the growing page-length problem that now fills at least half an issue, cannot afford publishing fees, more illustrations are needed to walk the biased (who don’t care about source code and such) through this, and so on..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The biased, by definition, are biased and won't be convinced whatever you do.

And this is it really, you have not succeed in the way you think you should have and you put it down to "bias", nothing to do at all with you.

hint: It's you.  


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All in all, I’m probably better off leading the undermining of the pompous part of the scientific political system that literally shuts-out self-learners like me with rules which only allow the academically entitled (or corporations) to receive funding, and credit where due.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell yourself that if you like. But the fact is that were this to be true: "scientific political system that literally shuts-out self-learners like me"
then it's a global worldwide conspiracy from top to bottom.

And which is more likely, that or your lack of success is down to something else?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So as with my little low-powered
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whining snipped.

In a way you hit the nail on the head.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
academically entitled (or corporations) to receive funding, and credit where due.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, people with money typically look for academic qualifications. Or results (you know, e.g. venture capitalists) will do in a pinch.

So I guess, for now, that rules you out!

Condense what you have got into a short, sharp paper that covers only the essentials that contains the "core" of your idea and send it off!

Then post the letters here. I'm sure they will be "this is rejected simply because of the content".

lol.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 10 2012,19:11

The forum index says this thread has 448 replies, which would fit in 15 pages of 30 posts each. But it has replies that should be on page 16, but page 16 doesn't show up without operator kludging of the URL, because the Ikonboard software computes the number of pages on the thread from the number of replies that it thinks the thread has.

Let's see if this post pushes the count that it thinks it has high enough for it to admit that there's a 16th page.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 10 2012,19:13

Again.

ETA: It took two additional posts to get page 16 to become visible without kludging of the URL.

Can the reply count in the forum index be updated to the correct value?

Can the Ikonboard software be fixed so that the counter stays at the correct value as replies are added?

Just thought I'd ask.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 10 2012,21:33

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2012,19:11)
The forum index says this thread has 448 replies, which would fit in 15 pages of 30 posts each. But it has replies that should be on page 16, but page 16 doesn't show up without operator kludging of the URL, because the Ikonboard software computes the number of pages on the thread from the number of replies that it thinks the thread has.

Let's see if this post pushes the count that it thinks it has high enough for it to admit that there's a 16th page.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fanciest way of saying "page turn bug" I've seen yet.  You could study under KF with skills like that.


kidding
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 10 2012,21:41

Here's a funny story Gary.

Shockingly, I don't have a Ph.D. in anything.  I'm a 'self-learner', but the difference between you and I is that I actually learn something about what I choose to talk about on the internet where everyone can read what I write.

Did you know that 'self-learners' can publish in peer-reviewed journals?  I'm still deciding if it's worth the effort it would take for me to write up the article I want to do.  You see, unlike you, I'd have to look up several hundred references and include them with the article.  You know, all those references that provide support to the things I would say in my article... oh wait, no, you must not know that.

BTW: Are you ever going to answer any of the questions I specifically asked about your specific article.

1) Do you understand that you are fundamentally mistaken about natural selection?
2) Do you have any support for an embryo modifying its genome after fertilization?
3) Do you have any support for any organism consciously choosing to modify its genome at any point in time?
4) Do you know how to develop a graph that meets the minimum requirements of 3rd grade school children?
5) There was some more, but that's all I remember and it's not worth the effort to look up, because we both know you won't acknowledge these questions... much less answer them.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 11 2012,00:11

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 10 2012,11:39)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 10 2012,11:18)

Actually, quality hit-wise, the computer model and included theory is doing better by being published at Planet Source Code than it would in an average science journal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In what way?
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And PSC does not care about typos and a little bad grammar, or has a policy to immediately reject the theory because of what it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What publications have that policy then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia >

Even though I would (just to see what happens) not hesitate to submit something that I felt was ready to go, this really is a lot of theory that takes more than a quick paper to explain.  It also does not help to have half the scientific community spitting on the journal, then canceling their subscriptions in protest, for allowing ID to be taken seriously.  Especially after seeing it daring to suggest that their Evolutionary Algorithms could somehow be an imperfect model of reality.

What is already proudly published at Planet Source Code is for now, an excellent way to see what the theory looks like in science.  It's there a how-to for self-learners who only need that.  And top journals seriously do not want to get stuck in the middle of something that protesting scientists should have resolved somewhere else first, like here.  So here, I am...
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 11 2012,00:37

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 11 2012,00:11)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 10 2012,11:39)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 10 2012,11:18)

Actually, quality hit-wise, the computer model and included theory is doing better by being published at Planet Source Code than it would in an average science journal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In what way?
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And PSC does not care about typos and a little bad grammar, or has a policy to immediately reject the theory because of what it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What publications have that policy then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia >

Even though I would (just to see what happens) not hesitate to submit something that I felt was ready to go, this really is a lot of theory that takes more than a quick paper to explain.  It also does not help to have half the scientific community spitting on the journal, then canceling their subscriptions in protest, for allowing ID to be taken seriously.  Especially after seeing it daring to suggest that their Evolutionary Algorithms could somehow be an imperfect model of reality.

What is already proudly published at Planet Source Code is for now, an excellent way to see what the theory looks like in science.  It's there a how-to for self-learners who only need that.  And top journals seriously do not want to get stuck in the middle of something that protesting scientists should have resolved somewhere else first, like here.  So here, I am...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What does a scientific paper need?

A testable hypothesis - you've already said yours can't be tested.

The test of the hypothesis - oops.

The data from the test - see where this is going?

The analysis of the data from the test - sigh.

A conclusion about the validity of the hypothesis based on the test - no hypothesis, no test, no conclusion.

And that is why no ID paper has ever been published in a peer-review journal.  Not a single ID proponent has ever presented a testable hypothesis for ID or the designer.

Do that FIRST, before you write a 50 page paper on ID.  Oh and it helps if, in your 'paper' you don't state things that are known to be wrong.
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 11 2012,02:23

Gary, I may have missed it but I don't have the impression that you have answered my question regarding the fluctuation assay. Where is intelligence interfering in that assay and where does it come from? Or do you consider the fluctuation test irrelevant for your "theory".
Posted by: Cubist on Nov. 11 2012,04:29

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 11 2012,00:11)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 10 2012,11:39)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And PSC does not… [have] a policy to immediately reject the theory because of what it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What publications have that policy then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That Wiki page does indeed list a number of scientific societies which reject the notion that 'Intelligent Design' is science. In many cases, it also provides the scientific society's reasons for rejecting the notion that 'Intelligent Design' is science. For instance, the American Assiciation for the Advancement of Science says this: "Intelligent design proponents may use the language of science, but they do not use its methodology. They have yet to propose meaningful tests for their claims, there are no reports of current research on these hypotheses at relevant scientific society meetings, and there is no body of research on these hypotheses published in relevant scientific journals. So, intelligent design has not been demonstrated to be a scientific theory."
American Astronomical Society: "'Intelligent Design' fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers."
I realize you presented that Wikilink to support the notion that scientists are dogmatically committed to reject Inteliigent Design, Gaulin. But after looking at that Wikipage, it seems that while scientists do, indeed, reject Intelligent Design, they don't reject it for dogmatic reasons; rather, scientists reject Intelligent Design because it just ain't science.
Got any testable hypotheses, Laddie GaGa? Yes, you have that spiffylicious computer program. Great! Does this program test a hypothesis? If so, what hypothesis does it test?
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 11 2012,05:58

Gary, I'm still trying to figure out how your "theory" is different (if at all) from the so-called "ID inference" that the IDiots at UD and elsewhere have been pushing. That's why I've asked you particular questions and why I have more questions pending in my head. The more you're asked to provide answers and/or something testable and the more you say, the more confusing, non-testable, and unsubstantiated your "theory" appears to be. The bottom line seems to be that you're saying "intelligence" itself is intelligent.

I think it was oldman... who suggested that you present the core parts of your "theory". I'll reiterate that and suggest that you present them a step at a time and focus on things that can be analyzed/tested/compared in such a way as to figure out if those parts have any merit.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 11 2012,12:50

I have to add that an EA not needing to forage for nutrition is because it doesn’t have to be there, for the algorithm to “evolve” something. Adding foraging to an EA at least gets closer to reality so job well done there. It’s just that in this theory there is another algorithm entirely.

When Avida was the newest rage in the forums even though it did not hold my interest for long I still only had good things to say about it after trying it out. Might say part of my EA/GA learning experience, that I’m glad was there to download and run. Best for all to know how a EA/GA works than not.  It’s just that an EA is not in this model where there must be what there is where two of the four requirements are found met by the behavior of matter for molecular intelligence that next emerges, which runs on metabolic cycles which require feeding on something. Without it, the algorithm does not work as shown in the Intelligent Causation illustration. In fact, it does not work at all. This is also what is needed to gauge success rate, how intelligence is here detected and gauged, so are working without what you need in the first place.

The kind of paper and/or video the theory needs just happens to need electrodes in the central complex of a giant cockroach that is then given a zap through just to see what happens when stimulated. That helps explain the system being modeled in the Intelligence Design Lab that in the two lobe configuration ends up with both lobes connecting into two Confidence level subsystem central complex. Programmatically zapping it would cause the same thing to happen. So of course that video had to be in the favorites links.

I must include the Blackawton bee experiment was so inspiring it led to BobaBot-Bee (Boba a TalkRational troll once around with childish impishness that makes them inspire that) thinking that led to the final design of the critter in the Intelligence Design Lab.  

< http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/site.......s.xhtml >

Also programmed a version that sets up the feeders:



Since it only sees the feeders sideways in a 2 dimension flat-land, it seems like a little stuck in a mirror-room confused.  Confidence goes from (having fun chasing an easy feeder to find) 2.7 to a half unsure where to go 1.3 confidence level.  It still figures it out well enough to get around, which made it worth uploading a .zip with BlackawtonBeesLab1.exe (should be dated 08/07/2011 9:04 AM)  

< https://sites.google.com/site.......ab1.zip >

Regardless of their bee paper’s final conclusions being arguable, the Theory of Intelligent Design none the less found the data gathering experiment very useful:
 
< http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content....t_el_86 >

Just in case backup link:
< http://www.yuddy2046.net/web_doc....056.pdf >

This theory needs papers and such that are in a whole other area of science, where it’s best to keep things as simple as that, where possible.  

It works with what you’re surprised it even can. See 0:37 into the immensely popular (in US) public education program for another example:  

< PBS Dinosaur Train theme song >    

Science is not going to stop over that either.  So it’s here really best to lighten up, and enjoy the novel science show. I’ll soon be back with more to address newest questions, to hopefully help make this an even brighter Sunday reply for you as well, to start off another interesting new science week with.  

An EA paper not working for this theory is not at all to be taken personally. It’s just a whole other theory with whole other model for all here to experiment with too. I would rather you be skeptical then find out that with all considered it's not all that bad, for a Theory of Intelligent Design.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 11 2012,15:03

Gary,

Have you ever encountered Robert Byers?  I ask because I have a feeling that you two might be able to communicate on the same level.  Here's an example:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... always remember that in questioning the ark story one is aggressively question , for many, Christian doctrines or Orhodo Jewis ones or Muslim I think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Linky >
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 11 2012,15:37

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 11 2012,12:50)
I’ll soon be back with more to address newest questions, to hopefully help make this an even brighter Sunday reply for you as well, to start off another interesting new science week with.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Any plans on addressing all the old questions that you haven't dealt with.

1) Your misunderstanding of natural selection
2) Your misunderstanding of the level of control a fetus has in controlling its genome.
3) Your inability to draw a graph that makes sense.

Just out of curiosity...
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 12 2012,08:12

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 11 2012,05:58)
Gary, I'm still trying to figure out how your "theory" is different (if at all) from the so-called "ID inference" that the IDiots at UD and elsewhere have been pushing. That's why I've asked you particular questions and why I have more questions pending in my head. The more you're asked to provide answers and/or something testable and the more you say, the more confusing, non-testable, and unsubstantiated your "theory" appears to be. The bottom line seems to be that you're saying "intelligence" itself is intelligent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The quick answer is like I was explaining earlier about design inferences and such trying to solve the scientific problem in the reverse direction of my method which begins with the most simplified cognitive model for any intelligence. In a design inference there is no beforehand knowledge of the circuit that must be there for this other level of behavior to be intelligent. My search began at our human level brain that we personally experience, to other levels of intelligence necessary for it/us to work, that then goes on into the behavior of matter from which we are expressed. 

       
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 11 2012,05:58)
I think it was oldman... who suggested that you present the core parts of your "theory". I'll reiterate that and suggest that you present them a step at a time and focus on things that can be analyzed/tested/compared in such a way as to figure out if those parts have any merit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We can easily compare illustrations showing core models. Here is the theory of ID:



And here is a typical EA/GA representative of the Darwinian theory model:
 


Do you see the very major differences?
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 12 2012,08:17

Gary your post is barely coherent.

Just so you know.
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 12 2012,08:26

GG this is where you should publish
< Social Text >
under the comedy section they love reductivist nonsense.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 12 2012,08:30

Yes, I see the differences.

One describes actual things that are actually happening in the real world and was developed using a significant amount of evidence from observation and experiment.

The other does not describe real things.  It has no evidential support.

And I would argue that the step in the middle "If desired fitness reached, then stop" is wrong.  If we knew the desired fitness level then we could design a system to do what we needed.

Genetic algorithms are used when it is very difficult to design a system, but easy to evaluate the results of a system.  For example, in optics.  It is very easy to do a ray trace on an optical lens system, but it is difficult (nearly impossible) to design a lens system to maximize some things, minimize some things, while keeping others constant (or within an approved range).

Now, the reason, I submit that the "if fitness reached, then stop" is an incorrect statement is because genetic algorithms often produce results that are surprising to researchers and engineers.  If those runs were stopped as soon as minimum fitness requirement was reached, then the maximum benefit would not have been reached.  

For example, in diesel engine management systems, researchers used genetic algorithms to vary the many components and inputs for a diesel engine in order to improve the efficiency.  Let's say the researchers wanted  a 5% reduction in soot, a 5% reduction in NOx emmisons, and  a 5% increase in fuel efficiency.   If the researchers had stopped there, then they would not have found the solutions that resulted in a 50% reduction in NOx, AND a 50% reduction in soot, AND a 10% reduction in fuel consumption.

In my experience, researchers allow a GA to run until it reaches an optimum which is not improved by the GA itself OR they run out of time or money.

BTW: Still have some issues you need to address.  Why won't you even talk about these things?
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 12 2012,08:49

Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 12 2012,08:17)
Gary your post is barely coherent.

Just so you know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here’s one to help explain the possible effects of your being spun around by the science of fractal similarity theory (needing one or two more chances) which somehow goes right though you like a breeze:

< U2 - even better than the real thing >

Did that make any sense to you?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 12 2012,09:05


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 12 2012,09:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you see the very major differences?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, using the latter procedure useful results can be obtained.
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 12 2012,09:10

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,06:12)
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 11 2012,05:58)
Gary, I'm still trying to figure out how your "theory" is different (if at all) from the so-called "ID inference" that the IDiots at UD and elsewhere have been pushing. That's why I've asked you particular questions and why I have more questions pending in my head. The more you're asked to provide answers and/or something testable and the more you say, the more confusing, non-testable, and unsubstantiated your "theory" appears to be. The bottom line seems to be that you're saying "intelligence" itself is intelligent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The quick answer is like I was explaining earlier about design inferences and such trying to solve the scientific problem in the reverse direction of my method which begins with the most simplified cognitive model for any intelligence. In a design inference there is no beforehand knowledge of the circuit that must be there for this other level of behavior to be intelligent. My search began at our human level brain that we personally experience, to other levels of intelligence necessary for it/us to work, that then goes on into the behavior of matter from which we are expressed. 

         
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 11 2012,05:58)
I think it was oldman... who suggested that you present the core parts of your "theory". I'll reiterate that and suggest that you present them a step at a time and focus on things that can be analyzed/tested/compared in such a way as to figure out if those parts have any merit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We can easily compare illustrations showing core models. Here is the theory of ID:



And here is a typical EA/GA representative of the Darwinian theory model:
 


Do you see the very major differences?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I see a difference between the way you presented your "theory" and the "Darwinian theory model", but I can't say that I fully understand your "theory" and I don't think that the wording you used for the "Darwinian theory model" is accurate.

What I find myself thinking when I look at your "theory" is pretty much what I said before: That you're kinda sorta describing evolution, with intelligent thought and action thrown in, for example a feedback loop between the processes and results of adaptation/evolution (mutation, drift, variation, speciation, etc.) and environmental pressures/natural selection, but instead of it all being 'natural' or any of it being 'non-deterministic', 'random', or by 'chance' you're saying that it's guided by intelligence and deliberate actions (including or solely by guesses) within molecules and cells (and atoms?). Am I close?

I have another question:

How does extinction or extirpation fit into your "theory"?




ETA: fixed a minor spacing error.


Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 12 2012,09:15

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2012,08:30)
Yes, I see the differences.

One describes actual things that are actually happening in the real world and was developed using a significant amount of evidence from observation and experiment.

The other does not describe real things.  It has no evidential support.
.........
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hope none actually expect me to feed that troll too. In this case they are essentially parroting old political slogans while clouding the issue with another pompous lecture.

It should be clear enough that there are two entirely different models, and they need way more than a brush-off to make the one for Intelligent Causation go away.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 12 2012,09:16

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,08:12)

The quick answer is like I was explaining earlier about design inferences and such trying to solve the scientific problem in the reverse direction of my method which begins with the most simplified cognitive model for any intelligence. In a design inference there is no beforehand knowledge of the circuit that must be there for this other level of behavior to be intelligent. My search began at our human level brain that we personally experience, to other levels of intelligence necessary for it/us to work, that then goes on into the behavior of matter from which we are expressed. 

           
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 11 2012,05:58)
I think it was oldman... who suggested that you present the core parts of your "theory". I'll reiterate that and suggest that you present them a step at a time and focus on things that can be analyzed/tested/compared in such a way as to figure out if those parts have any merit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We can easily compare illustrations showing core models. Here is the theory of ID:



And here is a typical EA/GA representative of the Darwinian theory model:
 


Do you see the very major differences?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 12 2012,09:31

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,17:15)
     
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2012,08:30)
Yes, I see the differences.

One describes actual things that are actually happening in the real world and was developed using a significant amount of evidence from observation and experiment.

The other does not describe real things.  It has no evidential support.
.........
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hope none actually expect me to feed that troll too. In this case they are essentially parroting old political slogans while clouding the issue with another pompous lecture.

It should be clear enough that there are two entirely different models, and they need way more than a brush-off to make the one for Intelligent Causation go away.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No Gary just say this to him, he should get it after a while.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My search began at my brain that I personally experience, to other levels of intelligence necessary for Vogons/widows to work, that then goes on into the night/god/lunch time from which I are expressed
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ETA: The original is almost sigworthy

PS BTW KIMOSABE WHO IS WE?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 12 2012,09:58

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,08:12)
*Snip*

Do you see the very major differences?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.

The bottom one models reality
The bottom one is accepted as science by scientists and not championed by a lone VB programmer
The bottom one has been used to solve actual problems

etc, etc.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 12 2012,10:34

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,09:15)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2012,08:30)
Yes, I see the differences.

One describes actual things that are actually happening in the real world and was developed using a significant amount of evidence from observation and experiment.

The other does not describe real things.  It has no evidential support.
.........
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hope none actually expect me to feed that troll too. In this case they are essentially parroting old political slogans while clouding the issue with another pompous lecture.

It should be clear enough that there are two entirely different models, and they need way more than a brush-off to make the one for Intelligent Causation go away.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's see, I ask for evidence and I'm called a troll.

I continue to remind you that you have unanswered issues with your paper and I'm ignored.

We're on page 16 here and you have yet to actually use your model to do anything or even explain it.

Can't say I'm surprised.  Let's try it in a way that creationists might understand.

DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR MODEL!?!?!?!?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 12 2012,10:39

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,09:15)
 
I hope none actually expect me to feed that troll too.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, that depends.

Let us say that that "troll" is in fact a zombie.

And that zombie wants to eat your brains.

So no, nobody expects *you* to feed *that* troll anything at all. Simply not possible.


Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 12 2012,12:10

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 12 2012,09:10)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,06:12)
           
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 11 2012,05:58)
Gary, I'm still trying to figure out how your "theory" is different (if at all) from the so-called "ID inference" that the IDiots at UD and elsewhere have been pushing. That's why I've asked you particular questions and why I have more questions pending in my head. The more you're asked to provide answers and/or something testable and the more you say, the more confusing, non-testable, and unsubstantiated your "theory" appears to be. The bottom line seems to be that you're saying "intelligence" itself is intelligent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The quick answer is like I was explaining earlier about design inferences and such trying to solve the scientific problem in the reverse direction of my method which begins with the most simplified cognitive model for any intelligence. In a design inference there is no beforehand knowledge of the circuit that must be there for this other level of behavior to be intelligent. My search began at our human level brain that we personally experience, to other levels of intelligence necessary for it/us to work, that then goes on into the behavior of matter from which we are expressed. 

                     
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 11 2012,05:58)
I think it was oldman... who suggested that you present the core parts of your "theory". I'll reiterate that and suggest that you present them a step at a time and focus on things that can be analyzed/tested/compared in such a way as to figure out if those parts have any merit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We can easily compare illustrations showing core models. Here is the theory of ID:



And here is a typical EA/GA representative of the Darwinian theory model:
 


Do you see the very major differences?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I see a difference between the way you presented your "theory" and the "Darwinian theory model", but I can't say that I fully understand your "theory" and I don't think that the wording you used for the "Darwinian theory model" is accurate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Trying to briefly word the concept of "Darwinian theory model" was never easy. In more detail: Even though Charles Darwin did not show a flowchart of the logic he was describing the theory he proposed had a "model" in it. From that came EA computer models with the GA computer model most representative of what he explained. There are Mutation and Selection variables, along with additional knowledge of genes and how they can be randomly mutated which Charles did not know about.

The text of a theory should have a "model" in it, which can next be coded to make a "computer model". If there is no model in the theory there is no computer model possible from it. I would then question whether it was really a theory. Could instead be a hypothesis therefore simply true/false with an experiment where results are best shown with something like a chart, not computer model. The theory the Discovery Institute long ago presented to Kathy Martin then later Judge Jones did not have a model in it, but that was then and this is now...

         
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 12 2012,09:10)
What I find myself thinking when I look at your "theory" is pretty much what I said before: That you're kinda sorta describing evolution, with intelligent thought and action thrown in, for example a feedback loop between the processes and results of adaptation/evolution (mutation, drift, variation, speciation, etc.) and environmental pressures/natural selection, but instead of it all being 'natural' or any of it being 'non-deterministic', 'random', or by 'chance' you're saying that it's guided by intelligence and deliberate actions (including or solely by guesses) within molecules and cells (and atoms?). Am I close?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In this theory, intelligence always has the ability to self-learn.  From the human brain to molecular intelligence (source of what you call "evolution") there is a learning curve, biologically physically "develops", but that's it.

Evolution is a concept from another model that makes even me dizzy trying to compare their variables. I once read (not sure where likely Wikipedia) that paradigms of theories are supposed to be this way, makes sense that they are.

You're here best off not to try making the other paradigm fit this one. You end up with generalizations for what might be seen happening in an intelligent population in an Intelligence Design Lab of the future but that still does not help explain how the model works, only complicates it.

     
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 12 2012,09:10)
I have another question:

How does extinction or extirpation fit into your "theory"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In this theoretical model we get an Intelligence Design Lab where there would be foraging success of its molecular intelligence, which as a population can still keep foraging through time even though every once in a while a branch falls off of it. In this theory we ultimately see the wider biosphere sized picture that in reality might not have change much because of one lineage going extinct, or may, depending on what it is and how far along in development it was.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 12 2012,12:18

Again, the model of evolution works. It produces things that did not exist before.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......antenna >

What does your model do?
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 12 2012,12:58

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2012,12:18)
Again, the model of evolution works. It produces things that did not exist before.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......antenna >

What does your model do?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What it can do is model multiple levels of fractal similar emergent intelligences which combine/combined to form multicellular living such as ourselves. And I know for a fact that your "model of evolution" does not model that, that's for sure. Does not even have a model in it to qualify something as intelligent, therefore the best you get are fuzzy generalizations that evolution is intelligent with the rest left up to the imagination.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 12 2012,13:06

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,12:58)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2012,12:18)
Again, the model of evolution works. It produces things that did not exist before.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......antenna >

What does your model do?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What it can do is model multiple levels of fractal similar emergent intelligences which combine/combined to form multicellular living such as ourselves. And I know for a fact that your "model of evolution" does not model that, that's for sure. Does not even have a model in it to qualify something as intelligent, therefore the best you get are fuzzy generalizations that evolution is intelligent with the rest left up to the imagination.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow!

Vote now:



or


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 12 2012,13:15

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,12:58)
What it can do is model multiple levels of fractal similar emergent intelligences which combine/combined to form multicellular living such as ourselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, go on then. Do that.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 12 2012,13:15

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 12 2012,13:06)
Vote now:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Excellent reminder for me to mention that I'm here OWED one!
And still waiting..
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 12 2012,13:22

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,13:15)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 12 2012,13:06)
Vote now:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Excellent reminder for me to mention that I'm here OWED one!
And still waiting..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, look at all the lives you've changed and how we now know much more thanks to your VB coding. Disease, suffering, you're fighting all of those.

If only there was a Nobel Prize for fighting insomnia, Gary. You'd be in with a shot.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 12 2012,13:27

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2012,13:15)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,12:58)
What it can do is model multiple levels of fractal similar emergent intelligences which combine/combined to form multicellular living such as ourselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, go on then. Do that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's like this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From:
< Intelligence Design Lab description - at Planet Source Code >

The computer model also provides a precise, testable and scientifically useful operational definition for "intelligent cause" where each of the three emergent levels can be individually modeled, with a model predicted to be possible that generates an intelligent causation event, now goal of further research and challenge for all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The amount of scientific work ahead, is currently beyond your comprehension.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 12 2012,13:36

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,13:27)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2012,13:15)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,12:58)
What it can do is model multiple levels of fractal similar emergent intelligences which combine/combined to form multicellular living such as ourselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, go on then. Do that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's like this:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From:
< Intelligence Design Lab description - at Planet Source Code >

The computer model also provides a precise, testable and scientifically useful operational definition for "intelligent cause" where each of the three emergent levels can be individually modeled, with a model predicted to be possible that generates an intelligent causation event, now goal of further research and challenge for all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The amount of scientific work ahead, is currently beyond your comprehension.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about you come back after you've done that. Why are you wasting our your time here!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 12 2012,14:43

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,13:27)
It's like this:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. It's like this: It does nothing.

Perhaps one day it will. Just like the timecube guy.

He might be right.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 12 2012,15:11

timecube definitely comes to mind here
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 12 2012,15:51

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,13:27)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2012,13:15)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,12:58)
What it can do is model multiple levels of fractal similar emergent intelligences which combine/combined to form multicellular living such as ourselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, go on then. Do that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's like this:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From:
< Intelligence Design Lab description - at Planet Source Code >

The computer model also provides a precise, testable and scientifically useful operational definition for "intelligent cause" where each of the three emergent levels can be individually modeled, with a model predicted to be possible that generates an intelligent causation event, now goal of further research and challenge for all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The amount of scientific work ahead, is currently beyond your comprehension.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then you are a suck-ass teacher.

I've taught kids who were in remedial math (arithmetic, not even algebra 1) to do chemistry formulas.

There are no poor students, only poor teachers.

Here's the thing.  Let's say that your theory is the greatest theory in the universe.  With it, man will conquer disease, the stars, and death itself.  

Yet you have done such a poor job explaining it, that no one can understand what you're on about.  No one can do anything with your theory because it's unintelligible gooblety gook.

THAT'S NOT OUR FAULT.  It's your fault.  If you can't answer the questions of the people here on this board, how can you possibly explain this to someone without a high school education?

As presented, it's useless.  As explained by you, it's useless.  It doesn't matter if it works or not, because you can't even describe it.  You can't show us how it works.  You can't show us it even does anything.

DO YOU GET IT NOW!?!?!?
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 13 2012,00:42

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,10:58)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2012,12:18)
Again, the model of evolution works. It produces things that did not exist before.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......antenna >

What does your model do?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What it can do is model multiple levels of fractal similar emergent intelligences which combine/combined to form multicellular living such as ourselves. And I know for a fact that your "model of evolution" does not model that, that's for sure. Does not even have a model in it to qualify something as intelligent, therefore the best you get are fuzzy generalizations that evolution is intelligent with the rest left up to the imagination.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Huh? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but are you saying that scientists claim that evolution is intelligent (i.e. an intelligent process)?

I think it's fair to say that many or all evolutionary scientists would agree that intelligence (as humans variably define it) has come about via evolution but I don't think that many or all would agree that evolution IS intelligent (an intelligent process).

I'm curious as to what others here think about that.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 13 2012,01:06

Okay, who else remembers Professor Irwin Corey?
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 13 2012,01:34

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 12 2012,13:22)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,13:15)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 12 2012,13:06)
Vote now:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Excellent reminder for me to mention that I'm here OWED one!
And still waiting..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, look at all the lives you've changed and how we now know much more thanks to your VB coding. Disease, suffering, you're fighting all of those.

If only there was a Nobel Prize for fighting insomnia, Gary. You'd be in with a shot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or a Nobel for managing to seamlessly merge run-on sentences with broken-English babbling.  It is impressive.

edit: for the typos
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 13 2012,05:23

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2012,15:51)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,13:27)
       
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2012,13:15)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,12:58)
What it can do is model multiple levels of fractal similar emergent intelligences which combine/combined to form multicellular living such as ourselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, go on then. Do that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's like this:

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From:
< Intelligence Design Lab description - at Planet Source Code >

The computer model also provides a precise, testable and scientifically useful operational definition for "intelligent cause" where each of the three emergent levels can be individually modeled, with a model predicted to be possible that generates an intelligent causation event, now goal of further research and challenge for all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The amount of scientific work ahead, is currently beyond your comprehension.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then you are a suck-ass teacher.

I've taught kids who were in remedial math (arithmetic, not even algebra 1) to do chemistry formulas.

There are no poor students, only poor teachers.

Here's the thing.  Let's say that your theory is the greatest theory in the universe.  With it, man will conquer disease, the stars, and death itself.  

Yet you have done such a poor job explaining it, that no one can understand what you're on about.  No one can do anything with your theory because it's unintelligible gooblety gook.

THAT'S NOT OUR FAULT.  It's your fault.  If you can't answer the questions of the people here on this board, how can you possibly explain this to someone without a high school education?

As presented, it's useless.  As explained by you, it's useless.  It doesn't matter if it works or not, because you can't even describe it.  You can't show us how it works.  You can't show us it even does anything.

DO YOU GET IT NOW!?!?!?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I’m not a school teacher. If I were then I would likely have had to be fired by now. Probably just as well I'm not. But you can say my being helpful/useful has made me teacher’s pet. In this case I can be proud of that.

The Intelligent Causation model (that builds upon the 4 requirement cognitive model) covers all of science. For modeling purposes it works great with String Theory type thinking, where there is a dimension level of control on other dimensions that coexist with each other (describes how addressing works).In an earlier example where I was unsure from literature what the central complex of an insect brain is for just look at the cognitive model, which predicts it’s the confidence level Hedonic System (it consciously “feels”) with RAM addressing inputs where some are for feedback from motor muscles. You sure can’t do that with a GA, but this theory covers so many sciences it’s no problem at all.

Applying the theory to current subatomic theory we get origin of life by self-assembly. It works with current self-replicating RNA theories, where self-replicating RNA models are needed and welcomed. This also works with Creation Science, where all that is needed is this more artistic pointer showing where the miracles are at. Reciprocal causation (not shown here) goes the other way as well. In Creation Science that’s the 24/7 prayer pathway to our Creator. Without a pathway like this there is no purpose to prayer, no receiver to receive it. And there is the paradox of something intelligent having to learn, therefore is not “all knowing” where this theory indicates that’s at a whole other level above the molecular intelligence (that on its own learns over time how to develop into many novel morphological designs) such that the big as the universe behavior of matter has the all-knowing part.


< https://sites.google.com/site.......ion.GIF >

Being able to connect this much science makes a model that is useful to and gets added to Creation Science. What the Discovery Institute had did not have a model it borrowed/stole from what already existed in Creation Science, which not only presented separations issues, it made some Creation Scientists steaming mad. David Abel made sure I knew that, real good, but I could see what he was saying. There was a very real turf-war going on, because of the theory not having a model for Creation Science either. Some are in protest over DI theory for much the same reasons you and others here are.

Much like Metaphysics where it’s OK to include some philosophy/religion instead of forbidden as in scientific theory, this theory helps Creation Science become more scientifically serious to a scientist like you. Not only that, you now at least have to try keeping up with what Creationists are getting into these days, or you soon find yourself way more behind the science curve than you ever dreamed possible. This theory even develops a simple scientific lingo all its own, which has some scientists scratching their heads but that’s what being specific looks like. The words and phrases you are used to are not there. You must instead pay attention to “behavior of matter, molecular, cellular and multicellular” which all shift the conversation to another level systematically like the other, where required terminology remains the same.

What this theory accomplishes for Creation Science is easily welcomed by Creation Scientists and Creationists, even though it’s science you would think they have to hate. That’s only what happens when the Darwinian paradigm incompletely explains the evidence, and believing that there must be a better explanation than that is rewarded with a slap in the face. Science needs who yearn inside for something better, or it stops right there. Reasons for wanting to go past the Darwinian paradigm do not matter, after we all get there.

For some including myself this theory is a “destination” to somewhere less scientifically oppressive and depressing. This connects back to calling song conveniently already well in culture for a (what I of course received as scientific) revolution to take us somewhere better than where we were before, where I’m the science radio pirate who had/has to help figure out where that is and needed the Theory of Intelligent Design controversy so of course it took a long time to make it all < gel > from here:

< 4 Non Blondes - What's Up >

At the Connecticut School of Broadcasting I had a teacher (radio name) Sebastian who explained how others love seeing underdogs win out in the end. And it just so happens that with us in this thread is Kathy Martin, who does not need to say anything for the unresolved public hearing to more or less go on, from here in this forum thread.

To make it even more scientifically challenging just like in science peer-review the “public hearing” method requires somehow putting what you have that is useful on the proverbial table to be judged. But judging must be left up to the ones the public hearing has to be for the people of District 6 she was elected to serve and for the good of all Kansas public schools. What you offer must be genuinely useful in gauging the scientific and educational merit of the Theory of Intelligent Design that is now on the table, from genuinely giving it a proper fair-hearing like all were hoping for, now here to via scientifically theory with real model you cannot brush-off, now here to challenge you. It’s likely the most epic scientific upset in all of scientific history, with Sebastian’s hypothesis having no problem holding true here either.

We are all making excellent progress through this latest science filled episode of the ongoing culture-war that was this time in-part brought to us by the Discovery Institute, a political think-tank which has a number of office with a phone projects and urban planning work to make Seattle and wherever a nice place to live and commute. The powers that be there don’t have to worry about which ring in the big-tent comes through for them, just hope one someday does and all are happy with it. Not much they can do about it anyway, it’s just better that the DI can like it too, than not.

Be thankful all are forgiving and this essentially offers a chance for “scientists” to change the outcome of that past big ugly mess of a public hearing with hurt feelings from everything going bad in Kansas, for so many who were hoping for something more scientifically exciting than a boycott then be outcast.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 13 2012,05:55

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 13 2012,00:42)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,10:58)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2012,12:18)
Again, the model of evolution works. It produces things that did not exist before.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......antenna >

What does your model do?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What it can do is model multiple levels of fractal similar emergent intelligences which combine/combined to form multicellular living such as ourselves. And I know for a fact that your "model of evolution" does not model that, that's for sure. Does not even have a model in it to qualify something as intelligent, therefore the best you get are fuzzy generalizations that evolution is intelligent with the rest left up to the imagination.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Huh? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but are you saying that scientists claim that evolution is intelligent (i.e. an intelligent process)?

I think it's fair to say that many or all evolutionary scientists would agree that intelligence (as humans variably define it) has come about via evolution but I don't think that many or all would agree that evolution IS intelligent (an intelligent process).

I'm curious as to what others here think about that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, in fact evolution being intelligent is the basis of a relatively popular < YouTube Origin of Intelligence video which made a painfully interesting red-herring out of the concept. >

I would be interested to know what others here think about the concept of evolution being intelligent. Good question!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 13 2012,06:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In Creation Science that’s the 24/7 prayer pathway to our Creator. Without a pathway like this there is no purpose to prayer, no receiver to receive it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why don't you fuck off and preach somewhere else, you fucking moron?


Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 13 2012,07:04

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,06:15)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In Creation Science that’s the 24/7 prayer pathway to our Creator. Without a pathway like this there is no purpose to prayer, no receiver to receive it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why don't you fuck off and preach somewhere else, you fucking moron?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I earlier mentioned scientific theory does not allow supernatural intervention, it should not need it in the first place. Yet your statement assumes that must be true for whatever (according to science too) created us to qualify as our Creator. So like it or not there are religious implications galore with this theory. And as I am sure you misinterpreted, science does not care what religion anyone is. All religions are always invited to have fun with science, even though would rather kick us all out, as though science is your own private little clubhouse.
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 13 2012,07:08

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 13 2012,08:42)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,10:58)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2012,12:18)
Again, the model of evolution works. It produces things that did not exist before.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......antenna >

What does your model do?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What it can do is model multiple levels of fractal similar emergent intelligences which combine/combined to form multicellular living such as ourselves. And I know for a fact that your "model of evolution" does not model that, that's for sure. Does not even have a model in it to qualify something as intelligent, therefore the best you get are fuzzy generalizations that evolution is intelligent with the rest left up to the imagination.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Huh? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but are you saying that scientists claim that evolution is intelligent (i.e. an intelligent process)?

I think it's fair to say that many or all evolutionary scientists would agree that intelligence (as humans variably define it) has come about via evolution but I don't think that many or all would agree that evolution IS intelligent (an intelligent process).

I'm curious as to what others here think about that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Creationists use 'Intelligence' as a dog whistle for God.

It's the brain in a jar model.

I agree with you though.

The word to me is synonymous with understanding.

The bible thumpers equate evolution in nature to be something in their minds to a blind and unthinking process that exists without guidance from their omnipotent and therefore super 'intelligent' father in the heavens. To support their mythology they require an artificial external reasoning or intelligence. In any case it is un-necessary, logically flawed and completely without any shred of supporting evidence.
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 13 2012,07:09

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,14:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In Creation Science that’s the 24/7 prayer pathway to our Creator. Without a pathway like this there is no purpose to prayer, no receiver to receive it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why don't you fuck off and preach somewhere else, you fucking moron?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Preaching; that's all he's been doing from the start.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 13 2012,08:05

Yeah, that's what I thought.

You totally misunderstood my entire point.  You have no idea what your notion does or how it does it.

You're just babbling on because you've probably been banned everywhere else.

Let's start simply.  

What is your hypothesis?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 13 2012,08:11

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,07:04)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,06:15)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In Creation Science that’s the 24/7 prayer pathway to our Creator. Without a pathway like this there is no purpose to prayer, no receiver to receive it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why don't you fuck off and preach somewhere else, you fucking moron?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I earlier mentioned scientific theory does not allow supernatural intervention, it should not need it in the first place. Yet your statement assumes that must be true for whatever (according to science too) created us to qualify as our Creator. So like it or not there are religious implications galore with this theory. And as I am sure you misinterpreted, science does not care what religion anyone is. All religions are always invited to have fun with science, even though would rather kick us all out, as though science is your own private little clubhouse.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What part of "Fuck off" was unclear?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 13 2012,08:12

Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 13 2012,07:09)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,14:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In Creation Science that’s the 24/7 prayer pathway to our Creator. Without a pathway like this there is no purpose to prayer, no receiver to receive it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why don't you fuck off and preach somewhere else, you fucking moron?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Preaching; that's all he's been doing from the start.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, sure, but now he's explicit about it and now so am I...
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 13 2012,08:55

Did you find time to think about the fluctuation test?

Just out of curiousity Gary, how do the creatures in your model perceive you? Do they think they are made in your image.
BTW, I was surprised to learn that you are old enough to have run an illegal radio station back in the last century. I.e, you must be much older than what I expected from your writngs.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 13 2012,08:57

is this thread still going?
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 13 2012,09:06

Yes, and it's still garbage.

Gary doesn't understand that his writing style is more appropriate to stream-of-consciousness novels and Relayer-era Yes lyrics than to any kind of explanation of... well, anything, really.

Gary:
Keep sentences short.

To separate ideas and phrases, use punctuation (like commas, parentheses, and so on).

edit move /
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 13 2012,10:17

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 13 2012,09:55)
Just out of curiousity Gary, how do the creatures in your model perceive you? Do they think they are made in your image.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 13 2012,10:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All religions are always invited to have fun with science, even though would rather kick us all out, as though science is your own private little clubhouse.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< >
< picture hosting >
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 13 2012,10:52

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 11 2012,04:29)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 11 2012,00:11)
           
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 10 2012,11:39)

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And PSC does not… [have] a policy to immediately reject the theory because of what it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What publications have that policy then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That Wiki page does indeed list a number of scientific societies which reject the notion that 'Intelligent Design' is science. In many cases, it also provides the scientific society's reasons for rejecting the notion that 'Intelligent Design' is science. For instance, the American Assiciation for the Advancement of Science says this: "Intelligent design proponents may use the language of science, but they do not use its methodology. They have yet to propose meaningful tests for their claims, there are no reports of current research on these hypotheses at relevant scientific society meetings, and there is no body of research on these hypotheses published in relevant scientific journals. So, intelligent design has not been demonstrated to be a scientific theory."
American Astronomical Society: "'Intelligent Design' fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers."
I realize you presented that Wikilink to support the notion that scientists are dogmatically committed to reject Inteliigent Design, Gaulin. But after looking at that Wikipage, it seems that while scientists do, indeed, reject Intelligent Design, they don't reject it for dogmatic reasons; rather, scientists reject Intelligent Design because it just ain't science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I try not to go into dramatics over what was true back then about the theory. I'm just eager for all that to change. Cannot rush things, or else get conflict from too much all at once. Knee-jerk reactions that very much happen (regardless of clear and precise I word the theory) can have some trying to take down your best journals.

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 11 2012,04:29)

Got any testable hypotheses, Laddie GaGa? Yes, you have that spiffylicious computer program. Great! Does this program test a hypothesis? If so, what hypothesis does it test?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seriously speaking, trollish one, the closest thing to a hypothesis is here the premise of the theory.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It is a one sentence statement that is true or false depending on the supporting theory, that the premise does not provide just assumes can exist. Hence the big-tent that included the ARN forum to help write the theory where I did have fun even though my being so scientifically demanding was very annoying to some there. The premise/hypothesis spelled out what was needed for a theory, but only a theory making sense in science makes its hypothesis hold true. That is all the hypothesis here needs to do, for it to set a far-goal to try reaching with a theory, where even getting just a part of the way there can be revolutionary.

I have to best I can explain what Creation Science needs to know, this is where religious theory that connects from the scientific theory belongs. And as you may have discovered in the earlier long list of vital to theory papers the < CRSQ paper by Jerry Bergman and Joseph Calkins > sure made it. All the numbers I was searching for on my own were all there, which saved me at least a year of work googling. Whatever motivated them to write/publish them, is fine by me, and I hope for more like that. The question of whether the inverted retina is good design or bad design is no doubt religious/philosophical, but that is what CRSQ is for. They here had a right place at the right time paper to make it easy to code simple but biologically effective vision system representative of any design. There is no having to give undue credit to Creation Science it's here giving credit where due for past help to the theory and I, even though it was motivated by a philosophical question. I'm showing what works for scientific theory, that came from the scientific content that fills the pages in between to prove true their religious/philosophical hypothesis. If you wish to provide evidence against, you should no kidding lighten it up as constructive challenge then publish it at CRSQ where that is for.

This theory does not need to answer the philosophical questions one way or another, or attempts to. It is more like the theory needs what gets hurled around during the attempt to prove philosophical hypotheses true of false either way. What's flying around in this forum from it appearing, only helps too. It's in a way like the perfect troll for a place like this, total scientist magnet that even has you all lined up to help tease it along too. That is very scientifically valuable, especially for serious people who need to make sense of an issue that very much divided a number of states. In many ways, the premise is a hypothesis that for good or bad on its own makes things happen, from simply being there, needing the theory to resolve a scientific model well enough to hold true in the forum like this one too.

Hopefully that helps explain how I found religious/scientific theory and hypothesis to be working together here. It seems both exist as separate entities, and we needed to see what a real theory with a real model that even creationists can like a real lot looks like, to see the value in what at first looks way too religious of a journey to ever lead to such a useful scientific theory.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 13 2012,11:09

How old is the earth Gary?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 13 2012,11:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It seems both exist as separate entities, and we needed to see what a real theory with a real model that even creationists can like a real lot looks like, to see the value in what at first looks way too religious of a journey to ever lead to such a useful scientific theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



useful for what?  so far as you have presented here it your 'theory' don't do shit

don't predict shit

don't answer shit

it does seem to fuel your bafflegab generator so that is at least something, but vodka and meth will do the same shit
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 13 2012,11:48

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,11:09)
How old is the earth Gary?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Creator has forever. No sense rushing a good thing. And time is different for something as giant as the universe, day becomes millions or more years our time.

It is here most likely the earth was here for billions of years, as radiometric dating indicates. It is though to this theory just a date that does not change the theory or its model, so it's a little bit irrelevant. But I do mention intelligent living things likely having been here for several billion years, so that the time scale used for all else in between is what is already used in science.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 13 2012,11:53

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,11:48)
Creator has forever. No sense rushing a good thing. And time is different for something as giant as the universe, day becomes millions or more years our time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


YEC Gibberish.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 13 2012,11:55

Gary, you are so smart, why don't you write a translator to convert your pidgin into coherent English?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 13 2012,11:58

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,11:48)
But I do mention intelligent living things likely having been here for several billion years, so that the time scale used for all else in between is what is already used in science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Were there "intelligent designers" around billions of years ago then?

For example?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 13 2012,12:02

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,11:48)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,11:09)
How old is the earth Gary?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Creator has forever. No sense rushing a good thing. And time is different for something as giant as the universe, day becomes millions or more years our time.

It is here most likely the earth was here for billions of years, as radiometric dating indicates. It is though to this theory just a date that does not change the theory or its model, so it's a little bit irrelevant. But I do mention intelligent living things likely having been here for several billion years, so that the time scale used for all else in between is what is already used in science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you met JoeG?

He thinks termites are intelligent.

You do not have a hypothesis.  You have a statement of belief.  Here, let me help.  This is a correct hypothesis.

If organisms are intelligently designed, then we should see X when observing Y.  However, if organisms were not intelligently designed, then we will not see X when observing Y.

What is X and Y Gary?

I note that this 'hypothesis' is the exact same 'hypothesis' as all of Intelligent Design uses and hasn't been updated.  I'll also point out that this version of the 'hypothesis' has been around since mid 1987.

And, shockingly, no one has ever bothered to even try and test part of it.

Tell me, Gary, in two sentences, what would be a test for this hypothesis and why?
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 13 2012,12:30

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,11:58)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,11:48)
But I do mention intelligent living things likely having been here for several billion years, so that the time scale used for all else in between is what is already used in science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Were there "intelligent designers" around billions of years ago then?

For example?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you consider to be an "intelligent designer"? Do they have to have a beard and be a he who magically zaps stuff into existence with their finger sort of thing?
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 13 2012,12:42

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 13 2012,07:06)
Gary doesn't understand that his writing style is more appropriate to stream-of-consciousness novels and Relayer-era Yes lyrics than to any kind of explanation of... well, anything, really.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now that's not fair.  Relayer-era Yes songs only droned on for an hour or so.  This has been going on for two weeks.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 13 2012,12:45

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 13 2012,11:55)
Gary, you are so smart, why don't you write a translator to convert your pidgin into coherent English?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Translator Circuitry Kinda Explained Here >
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 13 2012,13:05

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 13 2012,11:53)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,11:48)
Creator has forever. No sense rushing a good thing. And time is different for something as giant as the universe, day becomes millions or more years our time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


YEC Gibberish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You might think so but things at the molecular level happening at femtosecond speeds is one reason it's so hard to investigate. Solar system will not change much during our time though, due to scale difference.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 13 2012,13:09

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,12:30)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,11:58)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,11:48)
But I do mention intelligent living things likely having been here for several billion years, so that the time scale used for all else in between is what is already used in science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Were there "intelligent designers" around billions of years ago then?

For example?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you consider to be an "intelligent designer"? Do they have to have a beard and be a he who magically zaps stuff into existence with their finger sort of thing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why are you asking us?  You won't even take responsibility for defining the terms you use?

No wonder no one takes you seriously.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 13 2012,13:18

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2012,12:02)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,11:48)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,11:09)
How old is the earth Gary?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Creator has forever. No sense rushing a good thing. And time is different for something as giant as the universe, day becomes millions or more years our time.

It is here most likely the earth was here for billions of years, as radiometric dating indicates. It is though to this theory just a date that does not change the theory or its model, so it's a little bit irrelevant. But I do mention intelligent living things likely having been here for several billion years, so that the time scale used for all else in between is what is already used in science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you met JoeG?

He thinks termites are intelligent.

You do not have a hypothesis.  You have a statement of belief.  Here, let me help.  This is a correct hypothesis.

If organisms are intelligently designed, then we should see X when observing Y.  However, if organisms were not intelligently designed, then we will not see X when observing Y.

What is X and Y Gary?

I note that this 'hypothesis' is the exact same 'hypothesis' as all of Intelligent Design uses and hasn't been updated.  I'll also point out that this version of the 'hypothesis' has been around since mid 1987.

And, shockingly, no one has ever bothered to even try and test part of it.

Tell me, Gary, in two sentences, what would be a test for this hypothesis and why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes I do believe I read JoeG before. I have no problem with termites qualifying as intelligent, either.

And the theory/premise requires "intelligent cause" to be explained not "intelligently designed" therefore you're off on your own with a premise you fabricated not the one in question that I put in my signature line to help you get that one right.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 13 2012,13:25

what is the difference between an "intelligent causer" and an "intelligent designer", in english, preferably?
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 13 2012,13:41

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2012,13:09)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,12:30)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,11:58)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,11:48)
But I do mention intelligent living things likely having been here for several billion years, so that the time scale used for all else in between is what is already used in science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Were there "intelligent designers" around billions of years ago then?

For example?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you consider to be an "intelligent designer"? Do they have to have a beard and be a he who magically zaps stuff into existence with their finger sort of thing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why are you asking us?  You won't even take responsibility for defining the terms you use?

No wonder no one takes you seriously.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And the title is "Theory of Intelligent Design" not "Theory of the Intelligent Designer" hence you are expecting a whole other theory, which is easier for you to argue has a religious deity in it than the one that the premise of the theory specifies. I'm setting a good example, but not getting muddled by it, then off chasing a red-herring.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 13 2012,13:50

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 13 2012,13:25)
what is the difference between an "intelligent causer" and an "intelligent designer", in english, preferably?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To many, there is maybe no difference at all. But to a scientific theory that has to painstakingly operationally define absolutely everything it is a whole other theory. That one also seems more like something more for Creation Science to work on, so have fun with it there.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 13 2012,16:00

Q: Gary tell me your opinion on X.

Gary: Many people, yes, have opinions about X. For some it is creation embodied and as such it's a religious issue. For others, perhaps, it's just science not restricted by any requirement to wear lab coats. I hope you enjoy finding out about X as you develop my theory for me in this environment suitable for development of creation theory even despite science lab coat wearing trolls.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 13 2012,16:08

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,12:30)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,11:58)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,11:48)
But I do mention intelligent living things likely having been here for several billion years, so that the time scale used for all else in between is what is already used in science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Were there "intelligent designers" around billions of years ago then?

For example?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you consider to be an "intelligent designer"? Do they have to have a beard and be a he who magically zaps stuff into existence with their finger sort of thing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No no, not with fingers. Invisible, with magic, pure and simple like it behoves a deity of some stature!
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 14 2012,00:54

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 13 2012,16:08)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,12:30)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,11:58)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,11:48)
But I do mention intelligent living things likely having been here for several billion years, so that the time scale used for all else in between is what is already used in science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Were there "intelligent designers" around billions of years ago then?

For example?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you consider to be an "intelligent designer"? Do they have to have a beard and be a he who magically zaps stuff into existence with their finger sort of thing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No no, not with fingers. Invisible, with magic, pure and simple like it behoves a deity of some stature!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had an excellent idea how you can help us understand this. Instead of changing "Design" to "Designer" we will instead create a new supernatural deity by changing "Select/Selection" to "Selector".  Now all you have to do is present to me a "Natural Selector" deity of some stature, then I will accept your theory as being a scientific theory.

Does that sound like a highly scientific plan to you?
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 14 2012,01:51

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 13 2012,12:42)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 13 2012,07:06)
Gary doesn't understand that his writing style is more appropriate to stream-of-consciousness novels and Relayer-era Yes lyrics than to any kind of explanation of... well, anything, really.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now that's not fair.  Relayer-era Yes songs only droned on for an hour or so.  This has been going on for two weeks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well then maybe you would be interested in clean white lab-coat culture from like a whole other dimension?

< Beastie Boys - Intergalactic >

Then came CERN, and the rest was lab-fashion history...
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 14 2012,02:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now all you have to do is present to me a "Natural Selector" deity of some stature, then I will accept your theory as being a scientific theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Differential reproducitve success is a natural selector.
So are meandering rivers as well - why don't they run the shortest course down? So much is evidently going on in naturewithout even a hint of anybody having his hands there. Nature is not the impotent, sterile matter you have in mind.

Nature's ways are mysterious and it is our task to untangle that web. We got a looong way to go yet, we are not at science's end; we are in the midst of a veritable paradigm shift that I sense you are not aware of.

At each level from the bottom up things appear that we couldn't predict no matter what knowledge we might have about the underlying layer.

But you got your head up in the stratosphere, I live down here. Maybe you went astray somewhere along the road? El-shock therapy might be a good idea.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 14 2012,02:27

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 14 2012,02:11)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now all you have to do is present to me a "Natural Selector" deity of some stature, then I will accept your theory as being a scientific theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Differential reproducitve success is a natural selector.
So are meandering rivers as well - why don't they run the shortest course down? So much is evidently going on in naturewithout even a hint of anybody having his hands there. Nature is not the impotent, sterile matter you have in mind.

Nature's ways are mysterious and it is our task to untangle that web. We got a looong way to go yet, we are not at science's end; we are in the midst of a veritable paradigm shift that I sense you are not aware of.

At each level from the bottom up things appear that we couldn't predict no matter what knowledge we might have about the underlying layer.

But you got your head up in the stratosphere, I live down here. Maybe you went astray somewhere along the road? El-shock therapy might be a good idea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I can easily say that a human is an intelligent designer. And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells.

Your point is now what? That you cannot accept that as making scientific sense because your scientific method requires a deity of some stature in a scientific theory for you to accept it as scientific?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 14 2012,04:11

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,02:27)
And I can easily say that a human is an intelligent designer. And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wrote a reply to this Gary, but on balance I think

"Fuck off IDiot" covers it better.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 14 2012,05:32

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 14 2012,04:11)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,02:27)
And I can easily say that a human is an intelligent designer. And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wrote a reply to this Gary, but on balance I think

"Fuck off IDiot" covers it better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just for that swearing at me again, I had to make sure to right away add that detail to the < text of the theory >. I then discovered it did not belong in any of the sections that were there. So I had to add a Conclusion section, starting it off with that, along with where that thought goes from there:  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Conclusion

We can here say that a human is an intelligent designer. Cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. Molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells. Behavior of Matter is the behavioral designer of genetic based molecular intelligence systems, from which the other levels of intelligence are in-turn emergent from.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You demanded a pure and simple like it behoves a deity of some stature Conclusion, now you have one, or at least a good start in that direction, all thanks to you. All in your clubhouse should be just as proud of your new status as having helped make the Theory of Intelligent Design even better, as I am, but I doubt they will.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 14 2012,05:49

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,05:32)
All in your clubhouse should be just as proud of your new status as having helped make the Theory of Intelligent Design even better, as I am, but I doubt they will.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
n modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[2] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative.[3] Scientific theories are also distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[4]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If you really have a "theory" then you are using the word in a way that nobody else understands.

You don't have a well-confirmed type of explanation of  nature, you have a computer program that only you know anything about.

Your "theory" is not consistent with the scientific method as it has neither been falsified nor verified.

And of course you have totally failed to describe your theory in a way that any scientist in the field would be in a position to understand.

So, whatever you want to call it you certainly don't have a "theory" do you?

You've got a timecube.
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 14 2012,06:18

"And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells."

Gary, what is the "intelligent designer" of molecules, and what is the "intelligent designer" of the "intelligent designer" of molecules?

Are the molecules and cells in a 'normal, healthy' human more intelligent than the molecules and cells in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?

Are the molecules and cells in a human, who is born with a severe disease or disability, more intelligent than the molecules and cells in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?

Are the molecules and cells in a child prodigy (for say, mathematics) more intelligent than the molecules and cells in a child who is not a prodigy?

Now, picture two kids that are born a year or two apart to the same parents while the parents are both in their prime. One kid is born 'normal and healthy' and the other is born with Down syndrome. Explain how that can happen if 'intelligent molecules and cells' designed both kids.


Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 14 2012,06:58

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2012,14:15)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,12:58)
What it can do is model multiple levels of fractal similar emergent intelligences which combine/combined to form multicellular living such as ourselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, go on then. Do that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, could someone please shoot me a PM when if this happens?
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 14 2012,07:17

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 14 2012,14:58)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2012,14:15)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,12:58)
What it can do is model multiple levels of fractal similar emergent intelligences which combine/combined to form multicellular living such as ourselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, go on then. Do that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, could someone please shoot me a PM when if this happens?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's going to a lot of god talk first then crickets chirping.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 14 2012,08:01

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18)
"And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells."

Gary, what is the "intelligent designer" of molecules, and what is the "intelligent designer" of the "intelligent designer" of molecules?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since you are now in religion: In Christian theology it is generally accepted that there is a quality to our Creator that always was and always will be, and so may be matter that changes state but is still always there.  I'm fine leaving it as matter maybe also always was and always will be there.

In no way does this theory need an intelligent designer creating the behavior of matter, there is already Big Bang Theory and such for that.

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18)
Are the molecules and cells in a 'normal, healthy' human more intelligent than the molecules in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?

Are the molecules and cells in a human, who is born with a severe disease or disability, more intelligent than the molecules in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?

Are the molecules and cells in a child prodigy (for say, mathematics) more intelligent than the molecules and cells in a child who is not a prodigy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It all depends on how you measure intelligence. Intelligence can include motor control skill as in athletic prodigies who have good muscles for endurance but what controls muscles starts in their brain into subsystems which individually figure out to get the coordination just right. Another design option is more intellectual. Another design option is a great seafarer type, or industrialist.

 
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18)
Now, picture two kids that are born a year or two apart to the same parents while the parents are both in their prime. One kid is born 'normal and healthy' and the other is born with Down syndrome. Explain how that can happen if 'intelligent molecules and cells' designed both kids.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not all guesses that an intelligence system takes are expected to be as successful as Chromosomal Adam and Eve were. It also depends on what you would consider to be successful. None the less having any happy life is success to be thankful for. Maybe better that, than be a prodigy who lives in a state of depression because of it. Being so driven to one thing can be consuming. In a sense miss life, have no fun.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 14 2012,08:03

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,02:27)
And I can easily say that a human is an intelligent designer. And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells.

Your point is now what? That you cannot accept that as making scientific sense because your scientific method requires a deity of some stature in a scientific theory for you to accept it as scientific?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The logical fallacies in this regurgitation are just stunning.

1) Assuming the claim "cells have intelligence"
2) false extension "cellular intelligence designed human intelligence"
3) Assuming the claim "molecules have intelligence"
4) false extension "molecular intelligence designed cellular intelligence"

Gary, do you have any idea what "evidence" is?

Do you have ANY evidence for ANYTHING you have said?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 14 2012,08:15

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 14 2012,08:03)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,02:27)
And I can easily say that a human is an intelligent designer. And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells.

Your point is now what? That you cannot accept that as making scientific sense because your scientific method requires a deity of some stature in a scientific theory for you to accept it as scientific?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The logical fallacies in this regurgitation are just stunning.

1) Assuming the claim "cells have intelligence"
2) false extension "cellular intelligence designed human intelligence"
3) Assuming the claim "molecules have intelligence"
4) false extension "molecular intelligence designed cellular intelligence"

Gary, do you have any idea what "evidence" is?

Do you have ANY evidence for ANYTHING you have said?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary is simply continuing the same confusion and conflation of "ordinary design" with "rarefied design" that < underlies > the rest of the "intelligent design" creationism movement. His difference with the rest is that he appears to have a stepwise approach rather than an all-one-lump sort of thing.
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 14 2012,09:34

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,06:01)
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18)
"And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells."

Gary, what is the "intelligent designer" of molecules, and what is the "intelligent designer" of the "intelligent designer" of molecules?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since you are now in religion: In Christian theology it is generally accepted that there is a quality to our Creator that always was and always will be, and so may be matter that changes state but is still always there.  I'm fine leaving it as matter maybe also always was and always will be there.

In no way does this theory need an intelligent designer creating the behavior of matter, there is already Big Bang Theory and such for that.

 
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18)
Are the molecules and cells in a 'normal, healthy' human more intelligent than the molecules in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?

Are the molecules and cells in a human, who is born with a severe disease or disability, more intelligent than the molecules in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?

Are the molecules and cells in a child prodigy (for say, mathematics) more intelligent than the molecules and cells in a child who is not a prodigy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It all depends on how you measure intelligence. Intelligence can include motor control skill as in athletic prodigies who have good muscles for endurance but what controls muscles starts in their brain into subsystems which individually figure out to get the coordination just right. Another design option is more intellectual. Another design option is a great seafarer type, or industrialist.

 
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18)
Now, picture two kids that are born a year or two apart to the same parents while the parents are both in their prime. One kid is born 'normal and healthy' and the other is born with Down syndrome. Explain how that can happen if 'intelligent molecules and cells' designed both kids.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not all guesses that an intelligence system takes are expected to be as successful as Chromosomal Adam and Eve were. It also depends on what you would consider to be successful. None the less having any happy life is success to be thankful for. Maybe better that, than be a prodigy who lives in a state of depression because of it. Being so driven to one thing can be consuming. In a sense miss life, have no fun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, you're apparently saying that going any further than molecules, when asking what designed what, is suddenly religious. The line is molecules?

And you're apparently saying that "matter" and its "behavior" aren't intelligently designed by an "intelligent designer" and that there is no intelligence within matter or within the behavior of matter. Is that what you're saying?

To hopefully lessen confusion, will you provide definitions that you think apply to your use of the following terms:

matter
behavior
molecule

You said:

"It all depends on how you measure intelligence."

Well, I asked you because you're the one claiming that molecules and cells are intelligent and that organisms that contain molecules and cells are therefor intelligent, so you should be the one who can "measure intelligence" and apply that measurement and your "theory" to my questions. Can you and will you?

You also said:

"Intelligence can include motor control skill as in athletic prodigies who have good muscles for endurance but what controls muscles starts in their brain into subsystems which individually figure out to get the coordination just right. Another design option is more intellectual. Another design option is a great seafarer type, or industrialist."

You're just saying that "intelligence" is variable but that doesn't answer my questions.



More later.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 14 2012,10:02

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,08:15)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 14 2012,08:03)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,02:27)
And I can easily say that a human is an intelligent designer. And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells.

Your point is now what? That you cannot accept that as making scientific sense because your scientific method requires a deity of some stature in a scientific theory for you to accept it as scientific?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The logical fallacies in this regurgitation are just stunning.

1) Assuming the claim "cells have intelligence"
2) false extension "cellular intelligence designed human intelligence"
3) Assuming the claim "molecules have intelligence"
4) false extension "molecular intelligence designed cellular intelligence"

Gary, do you have any idea what "evidence" is?

Do you have ANY evidence for ANYTHING you have said?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary is simply continuing the same confusion and conflation of "ordinary design" with "rarefied design" that < underlies > the rest of the "intelligent design" creationism movement. His difference with the rest is that he appears to have a stepwise approach rather than an all-one-lump sort of thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't recall a "rarefied design" and will look that up.

Well I found a Paper-City Magazine with House and Design feature and similar links:

< http://www.papercitymag.com/Article....ied-Air >

It is so rare not even I know what it is yet. Thankfully, the theory helps keep it very simple. Best kept that way.

There is here a theory with a model that is fun to experiment with, that just so happens Creation Science can enjoy too. Nothing out of bounds of science about that, at all.

I earlier linked to the mandatory < Everything Is Energy video > to help conceptualize what the theory looks like where it ends up answering the cosmological big-questions. If what is in the video is what you call Creationism then witness how far Creationists have come since Dover.

More information on how the scientific method here works is in < Wikipedia - Collective Intelligence > especially about developing "The Golden Suggestion" that was here the one sentence premise for a theory all were invited to help figure out. It only makes sense that collective intelligence goes crazy with a golden suggestion like that here, because of your hating it real good. But the theory can take it.

To help get back on track a little, here is where what I said now stands in the theory which more or less etched it in stone. I could make a place for it in the Intro but at least should be somewhere in it:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We can here say that a human is an intelligent designer. Cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. Molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells. Behavior of Matter is the behavioral designer of genetic based molecular intelligence systems, from which the other levels of intelligence are in-turn emergent from.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As you can see I am clearly wording what in context of theory can be said, so there is no confusion as to what you end up with for an answer. That's the way the science goes, nothing I can do about it, in the first place.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 14 2012,10:17

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,01:54)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 13 2012,16:08)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,12:30)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,11:58)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,11:48)
But I do mention intelligent living things likely having been here for several billion years, so that the time scale used for all else in between is what is already used in science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Were there "intelligent designers" around billions of years ago then?

For example?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you consider to be an "intelligent designer"? Do they have to have a beard and be a he who magically zaps stuff into existence with their finger sort of thing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No no, not with fingers. Invisible, with magic, pure and simple like it behoves a deity of some stature!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had an excellent idea how you can help us understand this. Instead of changing "Design" to "Designer" we will instead create a new supernatural deity by changing "Select/Selection" to "Selector".  Now all you have to do is present to me a "Natural Selector" deity of some stature, then I will accept your theory as being a scientific theory.

Does that sound like a highly scientific plan to you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nothing you say sounds even remotely "scientific" and more like "horseshitty" but i got your "Natural Selector" swinging

differential births and deaths

jesus are you really this stupid or are you just playing dumb to get us aroused
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 14 2012,10:19

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,03:27)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 14 2012,02:11)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now all you have to do is present to me a "Natural Selector" deity of some stature, then I will accept your theory as being a scientific theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Differential reproducitve success is a natural selector.
So are meandering rivers as well - why don't they run the shortest course down? So much is evidently going on in naturewithout even a hint of anybody having his hands there. Nature is not the impotent, sterile matter you have in mind.

Nature's ways are mysterious and it is our task to untangle that web. We got a looong way to go yet, we are not at science's end; we are in the midst of a veritable paradigm shift that I sense you are not aware of.

At each level from the bottom up things appear that we couldn't predict no matter what knowledge we might have about the underlying layer.

But you got your head up in the stratosphere, I live down here. Maybe you went astray somewhere along the road? El-shock therapy might be a good idea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I can easily say that a human is an intelligent designer. And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells.

Your point is now what? That you cannot accept that as making scientific sense because your scientific method requires a deity of some stature in a scientific theory for you to accept it as scientific?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you can easily say lots of bullshit, we have all noticed, luv

but what you can't seem to do is tell us what your "theory" describes or predicts.  

maybe you don't know either.  i'm sure that this is because it is so utterly groundbreaking and revolutionary an idea.  surely.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 14 2012,10:22

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,07:18)
"And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells."

Gary, what is the "intelligent designer" of molecules, and what is the "intelligent designer" of the "intelligent designer" of molecules?

Are the molecules and cells in a 'normal, healthy' human more intelligent than the molecules and cells in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?

Are the molecules and cells in a human, who is born with a severe disease or disability, more intelligent than the molecules and cells in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?

Are the molecules and cells in a child prodigy (for say, mathematics) more intelligent than the molecules and cells in a child who is not a prodigy?

Now, picture two kids that are born a year or two apart to the same parents while the parents are both in their prime. One kid is born 'normal and healthy' and the other is born with Down syndrome. Explain how that can happen if 'intelligent molecules and cells' designed both kids.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


it is beyond this idiot to understand supervenience

he's like a retarded puppy chasing democritus's tail

gary so you're saying it's oogedy boogedy all the way down?  OK that and 6.50 will buy you a can of Skoal


Posted by: Woodbine on Nov. 14 2012,11:03

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 14 2012,16:22)
gary so you're saying it's oogedy boogedy all the way down?  OK that and 6.50 will buy you a can of Skoal
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That just stirred a memory.

I remember reading an old Reader's Digest back in the 80's about this kid who was a rising college football star (or something like that) who contracted mouth cancer from sucking on Skoal Bandits. They had to remove half his face - can't remember if he made it or not.

Anyway, back to Gary and his theory....


Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 14 2012,11:22

Is he confusing intelligence with what physicists call "emergent properties"?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 14 2012,11:41

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 14 2012,11:22)
Is he confusing
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you had me at that.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 14 2012,12:00

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 14 2012,12:03)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 14 2012,16:22)
gary so you're saying it's oogedy boogedy all the way down?  OK that and 6.50 will buy you a can of Skoal
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That just stirred a memory.

I remember reading an old Reader's Digest back in the 80's about this kid who was a rising college football star (or something like that) who contracted mouth cancer from sucking on Skoal Bandits. They had to remove half his face - can't remember if he made it or not.

Anyway, back to Gary and his theory....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


PICS OR DIDN'T HAPPEN

skoal is one of those things it's ALMOST worth getting facelipnosethroatstomach cancer for.

well maybe not that shitty cherry flavor
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 14 2012,13:01

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 14 2012,11:22)
Is he confusing intelligence with what physicists call "emergent properties"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.

He's also confusing "intelligence" with basic organic chemistry... and growth and development of organisms... and the central dogma of molecular biology... and natural selection...
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 14 2012,13:13

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,09:34)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,06:01)
         
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18)
"And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells."

Gary, what is the "intelligent designer" of molecules, and what is the "intelligent designer" of the "intelligent designer" of molecules?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since you are now in religion: In Christian theology it is generally accepted that there is a quality to our Creator that always was and always will be, and so may be matter that changes state but is still always there.  I'm fine leaving it as matter maybe also always was and always will be there.

In no way does this theory need an intelligent designer creating the behavior of matter, there is already Big Bang Theory and such for that.

           
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18)
Are the molecules and cells in a 'normal, healthy' human more intelligent than the molecules in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?

Are the molecules and cells in a human, who is born with a severe disease or disability, more intelligent than the molecules in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?

Are the molecules and cells in a child prodigy (for say, mathematics) more intelligent than the molecules and cells in a child who is not a prodigy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It all depends on how you measure intelligence. Intelligence can include motor control skill as in athletic prodigies who have good muscles for endurance but what controls muscles starts in their brain into subsystems which individually figure out to get the coordination just right. Another design option is more intellectual. Another design option is a great seafarer type, or industrialist.

           
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18)
Now, picture two kids that are born a year or two apart to the same parents while the parents are both in their prime. One kid is born 'normal and healthy' and the other is born with Down syndrome. Explain how that can happen if 'intelligent molecules and cells' designed both kids.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not all guesses that an intelligence system takes are expected to be as successful as Chromosomal Adam and Eve were. It also depends on what you would consider to be successful. None the less having any happy life is success to be thankful for. Maybe better that, than be a prodigy who lives in a state of depression because of it. Being so driven to one thing can be consuming. In a sense miss life, have no fun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, you're apparently saying that going any further than molecules, when asking what designed what, is suddenly religious. The line is molecules?

And you're apparently saying that "matter" and its "behavior" aren't intelligently designed by an "intelligent designer" and that there is no intelligence within matter or within the behavior of matter. Is that what you're saying?

To hopefully lessen confusion, will you provide definitions that you think apply to your use of the following terms:

matter
behavior
molecule

You said:

"It all depends on how you measure intelligence."

Well, I asked you because you're the one claiming that molecules and cells are intelligent and that organisms that contain molecules and cells are therefor intelligent, so you should be the one who can "measure intelligence" and apply that measurement and your "theory" to my questions. Can you and will you?

You also said:

"Intelligence can include motor control skill as in athletic prodigies who have good muscles for endurance but what controls muscles starts in their brain into subsystems which individually figure out to get the coordination just right. Another design option is more intellectual. Another design option is a great seafarer type, or industrialist."

You're just saying that "intelligence" is variable but that doesn't answer my questions.


More later.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With "More later" I better get busy getting this online!

At this time there is no known intelligent behavior in the Behavior of Matter, else we would have to call it "Intelligent Behavior of Matter". String Theory suggest something interesting in regards to control dimension setting other dimensions which adds one or both missing requirements for intelligence to the Behavior of Matter algorithm, but at least for now two of four requirements is what the evidence shows. At the molecule level (and subatomic) we are soon out of scientific knowledge of how the Behavior of Matter system works. Need new discoveries to know more, especially how consciousness is involved.

This theory makes it possible to know what you're looking for ahead of time. And here the top level behavior does not even need to be intelligent to create intelligence, only needs the inherent ability to create it, such as from Behavior of Matter that is made of energy and all else in the earlier < Everything Is Energy > video that is artistically seen taking us the sparkling intelligence that can come and go, through space and time, while it forever stays going.

Where we get even more religious about it, intelligence has to start learning from scratch. That is not exactly an attribute of an "all-knowing" Creator. The text of the theory made the (as a behavior) "all-knowing" part clear so that feature is not overlooked as though the top level has to be intelligent, or that the object of the theory is try to qualify Behavior of Matter as intelligent too. What are attributes of a Creator not even found by looking for intelligence, it's where intelligence comes from that does not need to be "intelligent" to create us that such attributes are here found.

It might at first seem counter-intuitive but here the search for the Creator goes into what does not need to be intelligent, therefore does not suffer its limitations yet may be part of where consciousness comes from, conscious without needing to be intelligent to see through our eyes, and all else in the universe looking back at us, maybe. But before I go on into a Sunday Sermon from your line of reasoning.

Of course I cannot rule out an intelligence existing at the Behavior of Matter level but as far as theology and Creation Science are concerned you are here looking in the wrong place by expecting a Creator who is intelligent. It is more what intelligence does not have for intelligence to exist, is in addition to intelligence such as consciousness. Even Creation Science has problems with the Creator being intelligent thus born knowing nothing and defenseless, then had to learn then grow and so forth. That's the Roman God system where the Sun was being pulled through the sky by a rope by another God and other now known to be nonsense we can all be glad is all gone now, credit Christianity and Islam for picking up from where Jesus and ones eaten by lions left off in proving that was all junk-science not worth following. Genesis described matter coalescing from the heavens then earth then later humans were created in a way there was an Adam and Eve moment that the theory of ID had no problem finding, in the modern scientific evidence. Still works today, for that.

It's possible to believe in another level of creation which is intelligent having first created matter. But the theory does not need to start there, or requires that to be true, for it to explain what it can (such as having logic that makes possible coherent scientific answers to what an intelligent designer is by forming sentences representing the logic).

It seems you do have to get used to the terminology. I hope that helps explain it some more.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 14 2012,13:13

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 14 2012,09:22)
Is he confusing intelligence with what physicists call "emergent properties"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think, somewhere within the gigantic bowl of word salad, he's conflating "intelligence" with "any behaviour with a non-random component".  Valency, particle mass, Hubble's law: it's all "intelligent".
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 14 2012,13:52

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 14 2012,13:01)
     
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 14 2012,11:22)
Is he confusing intelligence with what physicists call "emergent properties"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.

He's also confusing "intelligence" with basic organic chemistry... and growth and development of organisms... and the central dogma of molecular biology... and natural selection...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here is what that begins with. I hope others notice how in this paradigm "biological species" makes perfect sense along with the well established chemistry textbook "chemical species".  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Species and Speciation (Chemical, Biological)

Chemical species are atoms, molecules, molecular fragments, ions, etc., subjected to a chemical process or to a measurement. Generally, a chemical species can be defined as an ensemble of chemically identical molecular entities that can explore the same set of molecular energy levels on a characteristic or delineated time scale.  

Biological species are reproductively isolated taxa subjected to an environmental process or to a measurement. Generally, a biological species can be defined as an ensemble of biologically identical living things that can explore the same set of genetic traits/designs on a characteristic or delineated (geologic) time scale.

A chemical species is chemical molecular development produced by a species changing chemical reaction. The individual is a molecule that can (unless again changed to another related species) remain in that form virtually forever.

A biological species is biological molecular development produced by a species changing biological reaction. The individual is a living thing that perpetuates itself through time by replication. There is here species level “molecular development”, and “cellular development” into a type of cell for “multicellular development” from singly fertilized egg cell.

Behavioral Speciation

In both chemistry and biology there is “behavioral speciation” that applies as follows:

In chemistry there is "chemical speciation" where “chemical behavior” produces “behavioral speciation” of a “chemical species”. For example, before adding all the fish you want to a new aquarium it has to first be “cycled” with very few in it to establish toxic waste consuming bacteria that cause the chemical speciation of nitrogen in their urine from the toxic species ammonia (NH3, aq) or ammonium (NH4+) to the toxic species nitrite (NO2) then to the relatively nontoxic species nitrate (NO3) that plants and algae next consume. At first the most dominant nitrogen species is ammonia (NH3) from urine, then after cycling the nitrate (NO3) will become the most dominant nitrogen species.

In biology there is "biological speciation" where “biological behavior” produces “behavioral speciation” of a “biological species”.

Successful replication of a biological species requires each individual to be inherently able to recognize their own species from among all others.  Bees and ants use chemical communication to sense that the much larger queen belongs in their ensemble of biologically identical living things (which may include their farmed species).  Species recognition is also guided by (and often combination of) sound such as fruit flies and crickets that use their wings to sing a species specific song during courtship, visually by giving off light (fireflies and sea animals), or in bright light where male bower birds build and advertise adorned huts.  

Peacocks indicate their species (as well as arousal) by displaying giant tails that are full length by breeding season (then molts and has to grow back again) which makes a rattling hissing sound when they shake them.  When fighting the tail normally gets bundled up behind then they peck with their beaks or launch themselves forward for an attack with their sharp claws.  During breeding season instinctual behavior makes it more likely for a peahen (female peafowl) to tolerate the advances of peacocks (male peafowl) which will mate with anything that wanders into their displaying area.  Natural variation in tail spot number does not increase chances of a peacock’s success rate they just need the normal amount required to indicate to the peahen that they are a normal healthy peacock. With other species their size being scared off by (or keep a safe distance from) this relatively intimidating species recognition system peahens are more importantly an exception that doesn’t run away at the sight of an aroused peacock, which leads to the expected then happening from letting one slowly get too close, regardless of which species it may be that did not run when they had the chance to.

One example of when things go wrong is occasionally reported by ranchers who have a problem with a wild moose that thinks they are a cow, or at least would rather prefer to be with a herd where they don’t belong.  This identity crisis might be further complicated by loneliness and being safer in a herd with other animals, so even where the moose knows they are somewhat different a lonely moose may still prefer company of cows.  Regardless of their reasons for changing specie identity, keeping such a giant easily angered animal out of the herd where they think they belong is not easy.  Where left to roam with the cows the moose cannot parent any calves, which helps explain why there are not many moose with such a serious species self-recognition problem.  Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either.

Even when there appear to be great differences between the sexes the same genetic library is being expressed in both, producing detectable (to each other) features.  For example, in mammals, nipples are found on both male and female.  Later developmental features do not confuse our ability to recognize the opposite sex as being human.  Male and female peacocks also share many similar features.  Since they are not mammals they have no nipples, but male peacocks find their bold feathery tails to be similarly giggling aesthetic to females who find them a most beautiful feature.

During breeding season instinctual behavior makes it more likely for a peahen (female peafowl) to tolerate the advances of peacocks (male peafowl) which will mate with anything that wanders into their displaying area.  Natural variation in tail spot number does not increase chances of a peacock’s success rate they just need the normal amount needed to indicate to the peahen that they are a normal peacock.  With other species their size being scared off by (or keep a safe distance from) this relatively intimidating species recognition system peahens are more importantly an exception that doesn’t run away at the sight of an aroused peacock, which leads to the expected then happening from getting too close to one, regardless of which species it may be that did not run when they had the chance to.

The human species recognition system is highly visual.  We have words like “apish” or “hideous” to describe the looks and behavior of even our closest living relatives the chimpanzee, bonobo, and other great apes.  In our art and culture we find abstractions that exaggerate the real life features that we look for, as a result the size of Betty Boop’s pupil alone can become the size of her whole mouth yet we still recognize this cartoon image as being that of an attractive human.  In advertising the looks of a model are sometimes computer enhanced (airbrushed) to enhance the ideals not (yet?) common in our morphology.  What is added or removed from the picture helps show what human intelligence finds most desirable.  We are so visually responsive that just a picture of something we find attractive can produce a hormone based molecular arousal, or as in the common phrase “love at first sight” there is an instant behavioral change that produces an extreme desire to be with someone.
.....
.....

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The theory is having no problem at all fitting the scientific pieces into place in a useful way, by explaining how living things works, in the context of intelligence, without needing the baggage from the paradigm you're used to lugging around that here only complicates things.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 14 2012,13:58

How does gravity know to pull stuff towards it? Intelligence!
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 14 2012,13:59

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 14 2012,11:22)
Is he confusing intelligence with what physicists call "emergent properties"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From theory:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, a nonrandom force guided self-assembly  process whereby an intelligent entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in levels of increasingly complex organization producing self-similar entities systematically in their own image, likeness. As in a fractal, multiple designs are produced by an algorithm producing emergent fractal-similar designs at the next size scale (atom -> molecule -> cell -> multicellular).



Large arrows show this emergent causative pathway from behavior of matter (a Behavioral Cause) and intelligence from intelligence (an Intelligent Cause). The last arrow to Multicellular Intelligence indicates a predicted sudden event scientifically witnessed by the fossil record known as the Cambrian Explosion which will be covered in a section of its own. Shown in the lower half of the illustration is a simplified block-flow diagram of the same cognitive/intelligence system  that is at each level of the progression shown above it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 14 2012,14:32

Make a prediction using your "theory".

Test it.

Show the results.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 14 2012,14:40

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,13:52)
The theory is having no problem at all fitting the scientific pieces into place in a useful way, by explaining how living things works, in the context of intelligence, without needing the baggage from the paradigm you're used to lugging around that here only complicates things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First, you still don't have a theory, because you have no evidence.

Second, what you are doing is stealing the existing paradigm, then inserting "intelligence" in random places and calling it your own "theory".

That's all.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 14 2012,14:42

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,10:02)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,08:15)
   
Gary is simply continuing the same confusion and conflation of "ordinary design" with "rarefied design" that < underlies > the rest of the "intelligent design" creationism movement. His difference with the rest is that he appears to have a stepwise approach rather than an all-one-lump sort of thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't recall a "rarefied design" and will look that up.

[...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary, text < highlighted in blue > indicates a < link >. That is, a < clickable > Universal Resource Locator that most browsers allow you to < click upon > to < access >. These are usually provided to ensure that < relevant information > is readily < accessible >.

< The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So instead of design being the penultimate default hypothesis in the decision tree, rarefied design becomes, at best, a tenuous conclusion to draw. There is an in-principle difference between rarefied and ordinary design inferences, based on the background knowledge available about ordinary, but not rarefied, design agencies. Rarefied design inferences tell us nothing that can be inductively generalized. Consequently, analogies between artifacts of ordinary design, which are the result of causal regularities of (known) designers, and the "artifacts" of rarefied design do not hold (as Philo noted in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Book V).7 Indeed, we might even conclude that the specified small probability of rarefied design is itself an artifact of our prior expectations.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've provided the link previously to Gary, with a response that indicated that he had read the paper. Apparently it didn't make it to long-term memory.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 14 2012,14:48

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 14 2012,13:58)
How does gravity know to pull stuff towards it? Intelligence!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Intelligence is here instead to dream to one-day ask you: What gravity?

< ID Mission Training Video >

I hope that helps overcome your gravity, even though in your case you might then float off into outer space again on us..
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 14 2012,14:56

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,14:42)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,10:02)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,08:15)
   
Gary is simply continuing the same confusion and conflation of "ordinary design" with "rarefied design" that < underlies > the rest of the "intelligent design" creationism movement. His difference with the rest is that he appears to have a stepwise approach rather than an all-one-lump sort of thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't recall a "rarefied design" and will look that up.

[...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary, text < highlighted in blue > indicates a < link >. That is, a < clickable > Universal Resource Locator that most browsers allow you to < click upon > to < access >. These are usually provided to ensure that < relevant information > is readily < accessible >.

< The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So instead of design being the penultimate default hypothesis in the decision tree, rarefied design becomes, at best, a tenuous conclusion to draw. There is an in-principle difference between rarefied and ordinary design inferences, based on the background knowledge available about ordinary, but not rarefied, design agencies. Rarefied design inferences tell us nothing that can be inductively generalized. Consequently, analogies between artifacts of ordinary design, which are the result of causal regularities of (known) designers, and the "artifacts" of rarefied design do not hold (as Philo noted in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Book V).7 Indeed, we might even conclude that the specified small probability of rarefied design is itself an artifact of our prior expectations.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've provided the link previously to Gary, with a response that indicated that he had read the paper. Apparently it didn't make it to long-term memory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I seriously do not pay much attention to all that, or need to. It's a whole other argument from the past that I do not want to get involved in.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 14 2012,14:59

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,15:42)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,10:02)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,08:15)
   
Gary is simply continuing the same confusion and conflation of "ordinary design" with "rarefied design" that < underlies > the rest of the "intelligent design" creationism movement. His difference with the rest is that he appears to have a stepwise approach rather than an all-one-lump sort of thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't recall a "rarefied design" and will look that up.

[...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary, text < highlighted in blue > indicates a < link >. That is, a < clickable > Universal Resource Locator that most browsers allow you to < click upon > to < access >. These are usually provided to ensure that < relevant information > is readily < accessible >.

< The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So instead of design being the penultimate default hypothesis in the decision tree, rarefied design becomes, at best, a tenuous conclusion to draw. There is an in-principle difference between rarefied and ordinary design inferences, based on the background knowledge available about ordinary, but not rarefied, design agencies. Rarefied design inferences tell us nothing that can be inductively generalized. Consequently, analogies between artifacts of ordinary design, which are the result of causal regularities of (known) designers, and the "artifacts" of rarefied design do not hold (as Philo noted in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Book V).7 Indeed, we might even conclude that the specified small probability of rarefied design is itself an artifact of our prior expectations.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've provided the link previously to Gary, with a response that indicated that he had read the paper. Apparently it didn't make it to long-term memory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


his cache dumps at 2 bits
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 14 2012,17:21

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,14:48)
Intelligence is here instead to dream to one-day ask you: What gravity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"You must only realize the truth."

"What truth?"

"There is no spoon."

__

You've been living in a dream world, Neo.




Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 14 2012,18:38

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,14:56)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,14:42)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,10:02)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,08:15)
   
Gary is simply continuing the same confusion and conflation of "ordinary design" with "rarefied design" that < underlies > the rest of the "intelligent design" creationism movement. His difference with the rest is that he appears to have a stepwise approach rather than an all-one-lump sort of thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't recall a "rarefied design" and will look that up.

[...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary, text < highlighted in blue > indicates a < link >. That is, a < clickable > Universal Resource Locator that most browsers allow you to < click upon > to < access >. These are usually provided to ensure that < relevant information > is readily < accessible >.

< The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So instead of design being the penultimate default hypothesis in the decision tree, rarefied design becomes, at best, a tenuous conclusion to draw. There is an in-principle difference between rarefied and ordinary design inferences, based on the background knowledge available about ordinary, but not rarefied, design agencies. Rarefied design inferences tell us nothing that can be inductively generalized. Consequently, analogies between artifacts of ordinary design, which are the result of causal regularities of (known) designers, and the "artifacts" of rarefied design do not hold (as Philo noted in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Book V).7 Indeed, we might even conclude that the specified small probability of rarefied design is itself an artifact of our prior expectations.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've provided the link previously to Gary, with a response that indicated that he had read the paper. Apparently it didn't make it to long-term memory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I seriously do not pay much attention to all that, or need to. It's a whole other argument from the past that I do not want to get involved in.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.

There's that whole response where you went on at length about trying to look like you actually understood what was meant by "rarefied design" and failed, so while it is stipulated that you weren't paying attention, the evidence says that, yes, you did want to get involved in it.

Until it became obvious that you were completely off-base, at which point, yes, you wanted not to be involved. Your rate of abandonment of claims did make a pretty good predictor of that reaction.
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 14 2012,22:01

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 14 2012,13:01)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 14 2012,11:22)
Is he confusing intelligence with what physicists call "emergent properties"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.

He's also confusing "intelligence" with basic organic chemistry... and growth and development of organisms... and the central dogma of molecular biology... and natural selection...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you have a hammer everything looks like a nail implies that not everything you see is really a nail. More importantly though, it implies that what you have is surely not a nail.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 14 2012,22:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, you still don't have a theory, because you have no evidence.

Second, what you are doing is stealing the existing paradigm, then inserting "intelligence" in random places and calling it your own "theory".

That's all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You noticed that too, huh?

But molecules? Molecules of a particular type react with other molecules according to consistent rules. That's not the behavior of something with intelligence - intelligent beings aren't that predictable; sometimes they vary from routine for no particular reason. Chemicals don't do that.

Then there's that comparison of chemical species against biological species? Please, the word "species" has a very different meaning in those two fields. Two molecules of the same substance are as near identical as different objects can be*, but with biological species it's normal for individuals to be quite different from each other. Not to mention that it's also routine for closely related species to have no sharp boundary between them - which one an individual belongs to can sometimes be a subjective judgment.

(One exception to molecules of same substance being identical is if the atoms have different isotopes, but as I understand it, that usually averages out for most substances, although not always e.g. heavy water.)

Henry
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 15 2012,05:55

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 14 2012,22:33)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, you still don't have a theory, because you have no evidence.

Second, what you are doing is stealing the existing paradigm, then inserting "intelligence" in random places and calling it your own "theory".

That's all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You noticed that too, huh?

But molecules? Molecules of a particular type react with other molecules according to consistent rules. That's not the behavior of something with intelligence - intelligent beings aren't that predictable; sometimes they vary from routine for no particular reason. Chemicals don't do that.

Then there's that comparison of chemical species against biological species? Please, the word "species" has a very different meaning in those two fields. Two molecules of the same substance are as near identical as different objects can be*, but with biological species it's normal for individuals to be quite different from each other. Not to mention that it's also routine for closely related species to have no sharp boundary between them - which one an individual belongs to can sometimes be a subjective judgment.

(One exception to molecules of same substance being identical is if the atoms have different isotopes, but as I understand it, that usually averages out for most substances, although not always e.g. heavy water.)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Henry, using the required logic and vocabulary for this theory simply show where changes need to be made in this text for it to be more Occam's Razor simple and logical. If you succeed then the theory will go with that instead. Otherwise your suggestion that you have something better proves to be all hype:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Species and Speciation (Chemical, Biological)

Chemical species are atoms, molecules, molecular fragments, ions, etc., subjected to a chemical process or to a measurement. Generally, a chemical species can be defined as an ensemble of chemically identical molecular entities that can explore the same set of molecular energy levels on a characteristic or delineated time scale.  

Biological species are reproductively isolated taxa subjected to an environmental process or to a measurement. Generally, a biological species can be defined as an ensemble of biologically identical living things that can explore the same set of genetic traits/designs on a characteristic or delineated (geologic) time scale.

A chemical species is chemical molecular development produced by a species changing chemical reaction. The individual is a molecule that can (unless again changed to another related species) remain in that form virtually forever.

A biological species is biological molecular development produced by a species changing biological reaction. The individual is a living thing that perpetuates itself through time by replication. There is here species level “molecular development”, and “cellular development” into a type of cell for “multicellular development” from singly fertilized egg cell.

Behavioral Speciation

In both chemistry and biology there is “behavioral speciation” that applies as follows:

In chemistry there is "chemical speciation" where “chemical behavior” produces “behavioral speciation” of a “chemical species”. For example, before adding all the fish you want to a new aquarium it has to first be “cycled” with very few in it to establish toxic waste consuming bacteria that cause the chemical speciation of nitrogen in their urine from the toxic species ammonia (NH3, aq) or ammonium (NH4+) to the toxic species nitrite (NO2) then to the relatively nontoxic species nitrate (NO3) that plants and algae next consume. At first the most dominant nitrogen species is ammonia (NH3) from urine, then after cycling the nitrate (NO3) will become the most dominant nitrogen species.

In biology there is "biological speciation" where “biological behavior” produces “behavioral speciation” of a “biological species”.

Successful replication of a biological species requires each individual to be inherently able to recognize their own species from among all others.  Bees and ants use chemical communication to sense that the much larger queen belongs in their ensemble of biologically identical living things (which may include their farmed species).  Species recognition is also guided by (and often combination of) sound such as fruit flies and crickets that use their wings to sing a species specific song during courtship, visually by giving off light (fireflies and sea animals), or in bright light where male bower birds build and advertise adorned huts.  

Peacocks indicate their species (as well as arousal) by displaying giant tails that are full length by breeding season (then molts and has to grow back again) which makes a rattling hissing sound when they shake them.  When fighting the tail normally gets bundled up behind then they peck with their beaks or launch themselves forward for an attack with their sharp claws.  During breeding season instinctual behavior makes it more likely for a peahen (female peafowl) to tolerate the advances of peacocks (male peafowl) which will mate with anything that wanders into their displaying area.  Natural variation in tail spot number does not increase chances of a peacock’s success rate they just need the normal amount required to indicate to the peahen that they are a normal healthy peacock. With other species their size being scared off by (or keep a safe distance from) this relatively intimidating species recognition system peahens are more importantly an exception that doesn’t run away at the sight of an aroused peacock, which leads to the expected then happening from letting one slowly get too close, regardless of which species it may be that did not run when they had the chance to.

One example of when things go wrong is occasionally reported by ranchers who have a problem with a wild moose that thinks they are a cow, or at least would rather prefer to be with a herd where they don’t belong.  This identity crisis might be further complicated by loneliness and being safer in a herd with other animals, so even where the moose knows they are somewhat different a lonely moose may still prefer company of cows.  Regardless of their reasons for changing specie identity, keeping such a giant easily angered animal out of the herd where they think they belong is not easy.  Where left to roam with the cows the moose cannot parent any calves, which helps explain why there are not many moose with such a serious species self-recognition problem.  Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either.

Even when there appear to be great differences between the sexes the same genetic library is being expressed in both, producing detectable (to each other) features.  For example, in mammals, nipples are found on both male and female.  Later developmental features do not confuse our ability to recognize the opposite sex as being human.  Male and female peacocks also share many similar features.  Since they are not mammals they have no nipples, but male peacocks find their bold feathery tails to be similarly giggling aesthetic to females who find them a most beautiful feature.

During breeding season instinctual behavior makes it more likely for a peahen (female peafowl) to tolerate the advances of peacocks (male peafowl) which will mate with anything that wanders into their displaying area.  Natural variation in tail spot number does not increase chances of a peacock’s success rate they just need the normal amount needed to indicate to the peahen that they are a normal peacock.  With other species their size being scared off by (or keep a safe distance from) this relatively intimidating species recognition system peahens are more importantly an exception that doesn’t run away at the sight of an aroused peacock, which leads to the expected then happening from getting too close to one, regardless of which species it may be that did not run when they had the chance to.

The human species recognition system is highly visual.  We have words like “apish” or “hideous” to describe the looks and behavior of even our closest living relatives the chimpanzee, bonobo, and other great apes.  In our art and culture we find abstractions that exaggerate the real life features that we look for, as a result the size of Betty Boop’s pupil alone can become the size of her whole mouth yet we still recognize this cartoon image as being that of an attractive human.  In advertising the looks of a model are sometimes computer enhanced (airbrushed) to enhance the ideals not (yet?) common in our morphology.  What is added or removed from the picture helps show what human intelligence finds most desirable.  We are so visually responsive that just a picture of something we find attractive can produce a hormone based molecular arousal, or as in the common phrase “love at first sight” there is an instant behavioral change that produces an extreme desire to be with someone.
.....
.....

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 15 2012,06:05

Therefore ID.

Yawn.

What a tedious person you are Gary.

What predictions does your theory make?

What tests can you apply to those predictions?

Ignoring them wont make these problems for your "theory" any less real Gary...
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 15 2012,06:57

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,18:38)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,14:56)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,14:42)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,10:02)
         
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,08:15)
   
Gary is simply continuing the same confusion and conflation of "ordinary design" with "rarefied design" that < underlies > the rest of the "intelligent design" creationism movement. His difference with the rest is that he appears to have a stepwise approach rather than an all-one-lump sort of thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't recall a "rarefied design" and will look that up.

[...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary, text < highlighted in blue > indicates a < link >. That is, a < clickable > Universal Resource Locator that most browsers allow you to < click upon > to < access >. These are usually provided to ensure that < relevant information > is readily < accessible >.

< The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance >

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So instead of design being the penultimate default hypothesis in the decision tree, rarefied design becomes, at best, a tenuous conclusion to draw. There is an in-principle difference between rarefied and ordinary design inferences, based on the background knowledge available about ordinary, but not rarefied, design agencies. Rarefied design inferences tell us nothing that can be inductively generalized. Consequently, analogies between artifacts of ordinary design, which are the result of causal regularities of (known) designers, and the "artifacts" of rarefied design do not hold (as Philo noted in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Book V).7 Indeed, we might even conclude that the specified small probability of rarefied design is itself an artifact of our prior expectations.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've provided the link previously to Gary, with a response that indicated that he had read the paper. Apparently it didn't make it to long-term memory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I seriously do not pay much attention to all that, or need to. It's a whole other argument from the past that I do not want to get involved in.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.

There's that whole response where you went on at length about trying to look like you actually understood what was meant by "rarefied design" and failed, so while it is stipulated that you weren't paying attention, the evidence says that, yes, you did want to get involved in it.

Until it became obvious that you were completely off-base, at which point, yes, you wanted not to be involved. Your rate of abandonment of claims did make a pretty good predictor of that reaction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I meant what I said about my not being the one to talk to about concepts you need to argue with William Dembski over. From the way they list all the possibilities they could think of to explain "Life" and other things it's more of a brainstorming session, not text of a theory explaining a model.

Our guru for the "What is Life?" question became professor Koeslag in South Africa:

Johan H Koeslag, "Medical Physiology :: What is Life?", Stellenbosch University, South Africa
< http://sun025.sun.ac.za/portal.....is_life >

William Dembski adds to the theory the thinking about cells being like cities which are built and maintained by a molecular workforce. The < Starship - We Built This City > went out to him for such educational hoopla over the inside a cell video he talked over in a lecture.

It's not that I don't agree the page you showed me does not add up to a theory with a model to experiment with. That just is not where William is, in the logic of this theory that does not backtrack the problem in that direction, but still has a place for the overall IDea that he had in mind...
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 15 2012,07:09

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,05:55)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 14 2012,22:33)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, you still don't have a theory, because you have no evidence.

Second, what you are doing is stealing the existing paradigm, then inserting "intelligence" in random places and calling it your own "theory".

That's all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You noticed that too, huh?

But molecules? Molecules of a particular type react with other molecules according to consistent rules. That's not the behavior of something with intelligence - intelligent beings aren't that predictable; sometimes they vary from routine for no particular reason. Chemicals don't do that.

Then there's that comparison of chemical species against biological species? Please, the word "species" has a very different meaning in those two fields. Two molecules of the same substance are as near identical as different objects can be*, but with biological species it's normal for individuals to be quite different from each other. Not to mention that it's also routine for closely related species to have no sharp boundary between them - which one an individual belongs to can sometimes be a subjective judgment.

(One exception to molecules of same substance being identical is if the atoms have different isotopes, but as I understand it, that usually averages out for most substances, although not always e.g. heavy water.)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Henry, using the required logic and vocabulary for this theory simply show where changes need to be made in this text for it to be more Occam's Razor simple and logical. If you succeed then the theory will go with that instead. Otherwise your suggestion that you have something better proves to be all hype:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is a very curious statement.  So you seem to be implying that if there is substance to claims, then they will stand. Otherwise they fail.

So, where's the substance to your notion?

How will it overcome the current paradigm?  Because it hasn't yet.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 15 2012,08:11

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2012,07:09)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,05:55)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 14 2012,22:33)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, you still don't have a theory, because you have no evidence.

Second, what you are doing is stealing the existing paradigm, then inserting "intelligence" in random places and calling it your own "theory".

That's all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You noticed that too, huh?

But molecules? Molecules of a particular type react with other molecules according to consistent rules. That's not the behavior of something with intelligence - intelligent beings aren't that predictable; sometimes they vary from routine for no particular reason. Chemicals don't do that.

Then there's that comparison of chemical species against biological species? Please, the word "species" has a very different meaning in those two fields. Two molecules of the same substance are as near identical as different objects can be*, but with biological species it's normal for individuals to be quite different from each other. Not to mention that it's also routine for closely related species to have no sharp boundary between them - which one an individual belongs to can sometimes be a subjective judgment.

(One exception to molecules of same substance being identical is if the atoms have different isotopes, but as I understand it, that usually averages out for most substances, although not always e.g. heavy water.)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Henry, using the required logic and vocabulary for this theory simply show where changes need to be made in this text for it to be more Occam's Razor simple and logical. If you succeed then the theory will go with that instead. Otherwise your suggestion that you have something better proves to be all hype:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is a very curious statement.  So you seem to be implying that if there is substance to claims, then they will stand. Otherwise they fail.

So, where's the substance to your notion?

How will it overcome the current paradigm?  Because it hasn't yet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are now asking the same thing as "How did Relativity Theory overcome Electronics Theory which already explains light in optoelectronics?"

There are two separate models. Two separate sets of required vocabulary. Neither explain the exact same thing.

Demanding one be confused with the other is not what Judge Jones wants either. He noted the need to keep religion and another theory separated from the theory that is on its own supposed to explain a mechanism/model.

I solve the separation problem by only showing what needs to be in the "scientific theory" then let Creation Science freely work on "religious theory" that is possible from it. There is then a proper place for each, without science stopping because of it. And even you are here expected to keep the two scientific models scientifically and religiously separated. No special rules for you.

Suggestions that this theory has to overcome yours, is really only wishful thinking. The other theory you are protesting with makes an irrelevant comparison, which only makes it appear that it is evidence against the other, when in reality it is not.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 15 2012,08:16

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,08:11)
You are now asking the same thing as "How did Relativity Theory overcome Electronics Theory which already explains light in optoelectronics?"

There are two separate models. Two separate sets of required vocabulary. Neither explain the exact same thing.

Demanding one be confused with the other is not what Judge Jones wants either. He noted the need to keep religion and another theory separated from the theory that is on its own supposed to explain a mechanism/model.

I solve the separation problem by only showing what needs to be in the "scientific theory" then let Creation Science freely work on "religious theory" that is possible from it. There is then a proper place for each, without science stopping because of it. And even you are here expected to keep the two scientific models scientifically and religiously separated. No special rules for you.

Suggestions that this theory has to overcome yours, is really only wishful thinking. The other theory you are protesting with makes an irrelevant comparison, which only makes it appear that it is evidence against the other, when in reality it is not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are really confused.  I asked a question and get random gibberish about religion, Jones, etc in response.

I have no interest in religious models, religious research or anything else.

Let me try this again.

DOES YOUR NOTION ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 15 2012,08:29

Seems whatever Gary's religion is it does not have a rule about lying.
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 15 2012,08:39

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2012,08:16)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,08:11)
You are now asking the same thing as "How did Relativity Theory overcome Electronics Theory which already explains light in optoelectronics?"

There are two separate models. Two separate sets of required vocabulary. Neither explain the exact same thing.

Demanding one be confused with the other is not what Judge Jones wants either. He noted the need to keep religion and another theory separated from the theory that is on its own supposed to explain a mechanism/model.

I solve the separation problem by only showing what needs to be in the "scientific theory" then let Creation Science freely work on "religious theory" that is possible from it. There is then a proper place for each, without science stopping because of it. And even you are here expected to keep the two scientific models scientifically and religiously separated. No special rules for you.

Suggestions that this theory has to overcome yours, is really only wishful thinking. The other theory you are protesting with makes an irrelevant comparison, which only makes it appear that it is evidence against the other, when in reality it is not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are really confused.  I asked a question and get random gibberish about religion, Jones, etc in response.

I have no interest in religious models, religious research or anything else.

Let me try this again.

DOES YOUR NOTION ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are the one who asked "How will it overcome the current paradigm?" and it's not my fault that's where that question ends up going. At least can't say I was ignoring you. I was just being as precise as I can, and you maybe got more information than you needed but at least it's in there somewhere.

I'm now though just drawing a big blank wondering what more you could even ask for in a theory that made what is most important to know about the mysterious insect central complex quite obvious, and all else your model is no help for figuring out how it works.

What do you expect a theory to do and what does that accomplish?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 15 2012,08:48

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,08:39)
What do you expect a theory to do and what does that accomplish?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 15 2012,08:59

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,06:57)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,18:38)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,14:56)
         
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,14:42)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,10:02)
             
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,08:15)
   
Gary is simply continuing the same confusion and conflation of "ordinary design" with "rarefied design" that < underlies > the rest of the "intelligent design" creationism movement. His difference with the rest is that he appears to have a stepwise approach rather than an all-one-lump sort of thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't recall a "rarefied design" and will look that up.

[...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary, text < highlighted in blue > indicates a < link >. That is, a < clickable > Universal Resource Locator that most browsers allow you to < click upon > to < access >. These are usually provided to ensure that < relevant information > is readily < accessible >.

< The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance >

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So instead of design being the penultimate default hypothesis in the decision tree, rarefied design becomes, at best, a tenuous conclusion to draw. There is an in-principle difference between rarefied and ordinary design inferences, based on the background knowledge available about ordinary, but not rarefied, design agencies. Rarefied design inferences tell us nothing that can be inductively generalized. Consequently, analogies between artifacts of ordinary design, which are the result of causal regularities of (known) designers, and the "artifacts" of rarefied design do not hold (as Philo noted in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Book V).7 Indeed, we might even conclude that the specified small probability of rarefied design is itself an artifact of our prior expectations.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've provided the link previously to Gary, with a response that indicated that he had read the paper. Apparently it didn't make it to long-term memory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I seriously do not pay much attention to all that, or need to. It's a whole other argument from the past that I do not want to get involved in.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.

There's that whole response where you went on at length about trying to look like you actually understood what was meant by "rarefied design" and failed, so while it is stipulated that you weren't paying attention, the evidence says that, yes, you did want to get involved in it.

Until it became obvious that you were completely off-base, at which point, yes, you wanted not to be involved. Your rate of abandonment of claims did make a pretty good predictor of that reaction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I meant what I said about my not being the one to talk to about concepts you need to argue with William Dembski over. From the way they list all the possibilities they could think of to explain "Life" and other things it's more of a brainstorming session, not text of a theory explaining a model.

Our guru for the "What is Life?" question became professor Koeslag in South Africa:

Johan H Koeslag, "Medical Physiology :: What is Life?", Stellenbosch University, South Africa
< http://sun025.sun.ac.za/portal.....is_life >

William Dembski adds to the theory the thinking about cells being like cities which are built and maintained by a molecular workforce. The < Starship - We Built This City > went out to him for such educational hoopla over the inside a cell video he