Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Pages: (622) < ... 549 550 551 552 553 [554] 555 556 557 558 559 ... >

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,14:14    And FYI, the Unimolecular Intelligence section currently reads: Quote Unimolecular Intelligence Clues to the origin of intelligent living things are found in rudimentary molecular systems such as self-replicating RNA. Since these are single macromolecules that can self-learn they are more precisely examples of “Unimolecular Intelligence”, as opposed to “Molecular Intelligence”, which may contain millions of molecules all working together as one. REQUIREMENT #1 of 4 - SOMETHING TO CONTROL The catalytic ability (chemically reacts with other molecules without itself changing to a new molecular species) of ribonucleotide (A,G,C,U) bases combine to form useful molecular machinery. Where these bases are properly combined into strands they become a mobile molecule that can control/catalyze other molecules in their environment and each other, including using each other as a template to induce each others replication. Unlike RNA that exists inside a protective cell membrane (as our cells have) these RNA's are more directly influenced by the planetary environment, which they would have once have been free to control. Modern examples include viruses that can control the internal environment of their host, and may now have protective shells with sensors on the outside for detecting other suitable host cells to enter and control. In some cases after invading a host cell other sensors detect when conditions are right to simultaneously reproduce, thereby overwhelming the immune system of their hosts, which could otherwise detect then destroy them. REQUIREMENT #2 of 4 – SENSORY ADDRESSED MEMORY The ribonucleotide sequences are a memory system that also acts as its body. On it are molecular sites, which can interact with nearby molecules to produce repeatable movements/actions. Its shape can include hairpin bends that are sensitive to the chemical environment, which in turn changes its action responses nearby molecules and to each other. Their combined activity also changes their molecular environment, much the same way as living things have over time changed the atmosphere and chemistry of our planet. REQUIREMENT #3 of 4 - CONFIDENCE TO GAUGE FAILURE AND SUCCESS Molecular species that can successfully coexist with others in the population and the environmental changes that they caused are successful responses that remain in the population. Molecular species that fail are soon replaced by another more successful (best guess) response. The overall process must result in collective actions/reactions that efficiently use and recycle the resources available to multiple molecular species or else there is an unsustainable chemical reaction, which ends when the reactants have consumed each other, resulting in an environmental crash. REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS For a rapidly replicating molecule RNA editing1 type mechanisms can become a significant source of guesses. Also, molecular affinity will favor assimilation of complimentary ribonucleotides but where some are in limited abundance another ribonucleotide may replace what was previously used. The change may work equally well, or better, for their descendants. theoryofid.blogspot.com/ sites.google.com/site/theoryofid/home/TheoryOfIntelligentDesign.pdf -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,14:23    Quote (N.Wells @ May 07 2016,13:19) Quote The theory is clearly enough qualifying self-replicating RNA's as themselves being intelligent. You started off by changing the subject to something else entirely by claiming: "Intelligence" has not been shown to be involved in this process. What you did is the same thing as accuse someone of being an antiscientific religious fanatic just because they said "My pet mouse is intelligent". No, you assert it, but you neither qualify it, nor quantify it, nor do you justify it. If you require all the other qualifiers such as how the theory qualifies a system as being "intelligent" then you will have to study the training wheel equipped Introduction and all the rest of the text, which I linked to above. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,14:31    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2016,14:14) And FYI, the Unimolecular Intelligence section currently reads:     Quote Unimolecular Intelligence Clues to the origin of intelligent living things are found in rudimentary molecular systems such as self-replicating RNA. Since these are single macromolecules that can self-learn they are more precisely examples of “Unimolecular Intelligence”, as opposed to “Molecular Intelligence”, which may contain millions of molecules all working together as one. REQUIREMENT #1 of 4 - SOMETHING TO CONTROL The catalytic ability (chemically reacts with other molecules without itself changing to a new molecular species) of ribonucleotide (A,G,C,U) bases combine to form useful molecular machinery. Where these bases are properly combined into strands they become a mobile molecule that can control/catalyze other molecules in their environment and each other, including using each other as a template to induce each others replication. Unlike RNA that exists inside a protective cell membrane (as our cells have) these RNA's are more directly influenced by the planetary environment, which they would have once have been free to control. Modern examples include viruses that can control the internal environment of their host, and may now have protective shells with sensors on the outside for detecting other suitable host cells to enter and control. In some cases after invading a host cell other sensors detect when conditions are right to simultaneously reproduce, thereby overwhelming the immune system of their hosts, which could otherwise detect then destroy them. REQUIREMENT #2 of 4 – SENSORY ADDRESSED MEMORY The ribonucleotide sequences are a memory system that also acts as its body. On it are molecular sites, which can interact with nearby molecules to produce repeatable movements/actions. Its shape can include hairpin bends that are sensitive to the chemical environment, which in turn changes its action responses nearby molecules and to each other. Their combined activity also changes their molecular environment, much the same way as living things have over time changed the atmosphere and chemistry of our planet. REQUIREMENT #3 of 4 - CONFIDENCE TO GAUGE FAILURE AND SUCCESS Molecular species that can successfully coexist with others in the population and the environmental changes that they caused are successful responses that remain in the population. Molecular species that fail are soon replaced by another more successful (best guess) response. The overall process must result in collective actions/reactions that efficiently use and recycle the resources available to multiple molecular species or else there is an unsustainable chemical reaction, which ends when the reactants have consumed each other, resulting in an environmental crash. REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS For a rapidly replicating molecule RNA editing1 type mechanisms can become a significant source of guesses. Also, molecular affinity will favor assimilation of complimentary ribonucleotides but where some are in limited abundance another ribonucleotide may replace what was previously used. The change may work equally well, or better, for their descendants. theoryofid.blogspot.com/ sites.google.com/site/theoryofid/home/TheoryOfIntelligentDesign.pdf So why are you linking to an obsolete post as evidence of having already provided the answer? It's still horribly problematic.   Quote If you require all the other qualifiers such as how the theory qualifies a system as being "intelligent" then you will have to study the training wheel equipped Introduction and all the rest of the text, which I linked to above.  I have - I've complained about it before, and you haven't listened.  And your "training wheels" tend to be non-round and incapable of rotation (i.e. dysfunctional). Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,14:52    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2016,14:14) And FYI, the Unimolecular Intelligence section currently reads:   Quote Unimolecular Intelligence Clues to the origin of intelligent living things are found in rudimentary molecular systems such as self-replicating RNA. Since these are single macromolecules that can self-learn they are more precisely examples of “Unimolecular Intelligence”, as opposed to “Molecular Intelligence”, which may contain millions of molecules all working together as one. REQUIREMENT #1 of 4 - SOMETHING TO CONTROL The catalytic ability (chemically reacts with other molecules without itself changing to a new molecular species) of ribonucleotide (A,G,C,U) bases combine to form useful molecular machinery. Where these bases are properly combined into strands they become a mobile molecule that can control/catalyze other molecules in their environment and each other, including using each other as a template to induce each others replication. Unlike RNA that exists inside a protective cell membrane (as our cells have) these RNA's are more directly influenced by the planetary environment, which they would have once have been free to control. Modern examples include viruses that can control the internal environment of their host, and may now have protective shells with sensors on the outside for detecting other suitable host cells to enter and control. In some cases after invading a host cell other sensors detect when conditions are right to simultaneously reproduce, thereby overwhelming the immune system of their hosts, which could otherwise detect then destroy them. REQUIREMENT #2 of 4 – SENSORY ADDRESSED MEMORY The ribonucleotide sequences are a memory system that also acts as its body. On it are molecular sites, which can interact with nearby molecules to produce repeatable movements/actions. Its shape can include hairpin bends that are sensitive to the chemical environment, which in turn changes its action responses nearby molecules and to each other. Their combined activity also changes their molecular environment, much the same way as living things have over time changed the atmosphere and chemistry of our planet. REQUIREMENT #3 of 4 - CONFIDENCE TO GAUGE FAILURE AND SUCCESS Molecular species that can successfully coexist with others in the population and the environmental changes that they caused are successful responses that remain in the population. Molecular species that fail are soon replaced by another more successful (best guess) response. The overall process must result in collective actions/reactions that efficiently use and recycle the resources available to multiple molecular species or else there is an unsustainable chemical reaction, which ends when the reactants have consumed each other, resulting in an environmental crash. REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS For a rapidly replicating molecule RNA editing1 type mechanisms can become a significant source of guesses. Also, molecular affinity will favor assimilation of complimentary ribonucleotides but where some are in limited abundance another ribonucleotide may replace what was previously used. The change may work equally well, or better, for their descendants. theoryofid.blogspot.com/ sites.google.com/site/theoryofid/home/TheoryOfIntelligentDesign.pdf In addition to prior criticisms: You have not yet demonstrated that the initial living things were intelligent. Millions is an underestimate. "Self-learning" is problematic, particular in regard to molecules.   "Mobile" is problematic. Viruses mostly don't fully control their hosts' interiors. "that also acts as its body"? ", which in turn changes its action responses nearby molecules and to each other." Say what? "Their combined activity": Unreferenced their. Molecular species: not species the way you imply elsewhere. "another more successful (best guess) response": That's not a guess.   Quote The overall process must result in collective actions/reactions that efficiently use and recycle the resources available to multiple molecular species or else there is an unsustainable chemical reaction  No, that's why we have free diatomic oxygen in the atmosphere.   Quote , which ends when the reactants have consumed each other  Usually, one is used up (or at least drops to saturation levels or below), and some of the other one remains unused.   Quote resulting in an environmental crash. That can happen, but it doesn't have to. "editing1 type mechanisms"  ??? Those aren't guesses either.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,15:06    From introduction: Quote Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. [3] Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail. [4] Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”. What N.Wells thinks of how the science works out is irrelevant to the theory. I am not obligated to use terminology that they prefer, which for the most part came out of a dictionary not a scientific model for demonstrating how intelligence of any kind works. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,15:20    Molecular/Chemical Species: http://www.cyberlipid.org/phlipt.....005.htm https://www.google.com/webhp?s....species etc.. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,15:25    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2016,15:06) From introduction:       Quote Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. [3] Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail. [4] Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”. What N.Wells thinks of how the science works out is irrelevant to the theory. I am not obligated to use terminology that they prefer, which for the most part came out of a dictionary not a scientific model for demonstrating how intelligence of any kind works. "N.Wells ..... their" Since you are elevating me to being a collective, you are increasing my authority to declare your nonsense to not be a theory.  :) It's not a theory. Intelligence does not need something to control: dreaming. It also does not need motor muscles, which should not include a list of things that are not motor muscles.  Really, you are just using words to mean anything you want them to mean.  (Like "science" and "intelligence" and "theory" and "learning", and "parental devotion" in salmon, and "hippocampi" in insects, and I could go on and on here.) It's not RAM.  "Sensory sensors"!? Successful versions of RNA are not stored in a central hedonic system, are not incremented by confidence levels, and do not record successful motor actions (not having motors).  This is in "not even wrong" territory. Trying out a new mutation of RNA or DNA does not constitute a "memory action" (whatever that is) and is not based on any stored confidence level.   As I keep saying, scientists (and even you) are welcome to redefine terms when this is thought to be necessary, but the new definition has to be provided and justified.  You can't just post hoc say, "oh by 'motor muscles' I also mean 'electronic write to a screen'. " Your nonsense will remain BS at least until you get your act together (and my money says for ever after as well, but feel free to actually disprove my statements). And in the second post you continue to conflate different meanings of "species", with fatal results for any argument that tries to use the word "speciation".  Your arguments are incompetent.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,15:32    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2016,16:06) From introduction:   Quote Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. [3] Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail. [4] Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”. What N.Wells thinks of how the science works out is irrelevant to the theory. I am not obligated to use terminology that they prefer, which for the most part came out of a dictionary not a scientific model for demonstrating how intelligence of any kind works. Bullshit again. You are obligated to meaningfully communicate. To seriously attempt to assert that scientific terminology grew out of recourse to dictionaries rather than the interactive, generative, living process of technical language between technical participants is insane.  Barking mad in fact. You can use whatever terminology you bloody well choose to.  The particular words and phrases, tortured and abused as they are, that you prefer, have not done well by you. NO ONE other than you finds meaning or utility in them. They are vague, incoherent, mutually conflicting if not contradictory, and most of all, an impediment to both clear thinking and clear communication. Everything you're going on about so far on this page is a tired rehash of material that has already been quite exhaustively ripped apart and tossed in the rubbish bin, on the merits. Repeating without ever addressing the nearly countless rejoinders, questions, critiques, and bludgeoning verbal assaults that have reduced this nonsense to a heap of smoldering rubbish does not help you in the slightest. Your multi-circle diagram is laughable.  It might as well be something scrawled on the wall of an insane asylum by a lunatic armed only with his feces. We've been over it, repeatedly.  It has never once survived the encounter. Try answering the direct questions.  Try doing so without simply directing the questioners back to the original material about which the questions are being asked and the objections are being raised. You won't because you can't.  The only support you have is the warm comfy glow of smug satisfied self-importance you, and you alone, derive from your effluent. We can say that safe and secure in the knowledge that you have convinced no one of the merit of your efforts. We can also say that, of course, in the comfort and security of having disproved the few bits that are meaningful as well as having shown the rest to be neither meaningful nor insightful nor well-informed. It's not so much that history will forget you and your work.  It's that neither you nor your work will ever be noticed at all.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,15:52    Quote (N.Wells @ May 07 2016,15:25) Intelligence does not need something to control: dreaming. Then you should have no problem at all showing me an intelligent entity that has no body and is made of absolutely nothing. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,16:02    And FYI again, requirement 1 states: Quote [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). The constant moving of the goalposts and rewording of what I said is one reason why I am wasting my time arguing with these people. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,16:05    Quote And FYI again, requirement 1 states... That remains a problematic and unjustified assertion.   Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2016,15:52)           Quote (N.Wells @ May 07 2016,15:25) Intelligence does not need something to control: dreaming. Then you should have no problem at all showing me an intelligent entity that has no body and is made of absolutely nothing. No, that doesn't follow at all.  You are insisting that there is no intelligence without something to control, yet dreaming is clearly a behavior associated with intelligence, even though it controls nothing and requires neither motor muscles nor confidence levels. (Besides, it's your ID crowd that wants an immaterial, noncorporeal, yet somehow super-intelligent deity and a disembodied Host for which no evidence exists.  Why don't you show such a thing?)           Quote The constant moving of the goalposts and rewording of what I said is one reason why I am wasting my time arguing with these people. You are certainly wasting your time and moving the goalposts, but the goalposts are your own and we are asking about your own wording.  You are the one who illogically added "virtual representation" as a body that constitutes "something to control", and again you are the one who illogically expanded "motor muscles" to include "electronic write to screen".  Neither of those are material things; both of them were added ad hoc by you to try to save you from your own conceptual errors. Also, you are not arguing (an intellectual process that presents a collective series of statements made to establish a definite proposition: see the source cited below), so much as you are simply making contradictory asinine assertions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....x6-0GhA I'm working on my spare time, but I think you may have wanted the first room: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v...._aZjHXc (first part).

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,16:32    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2016,16:52) Quote (N.Wells @ May 07 2016,15:25) Intelligence does not need something to control: dreaming. Then you should have no problem at all showing me an intelligent entity that has no body and is made of absolutely nothing. Can you say 'non sequitur'? Somehow I'm pretty sure you can't. That all intelligence is embodied is an important fact, but it is not directly a part of any 'circuit diagram' of intelligence. Else why are you not including the circuit board itself in your 'circuit diagrams'? Or to put it in more computer-centric terms, any implementation of a Turing Machine requires a power source.  A power source is no part of the model of computing proposed by Turing nor is it an 'essential component' of Turing Machines.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,16:34    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2016,17:02) And FYI again, requirement 1 states:   Quote [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). The constant moving of the goalposts and rewording of what I said is one reason why I am wasting my time arguing with these people. You're the only one who is moving goalposts.  Typically this happens because you wouldn't recognize a goalpost if one were inserted up your ass, but regardless. 'Rewording what you said' is your schtick.  You make it impossible to trace what you change in your document or when it changed by not having the document under version control. Get a GitHub account and put your document in it.  Commit and push changes.  It's easy enough even you could eventually figure out how to do it. This, too, is an old old problem with your work.  One you have used to your benefit in the past.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,16:38    Further to the 'something to control' issue -- as has already been discussed, recognition of a melody involves no muscle activity whatsoever.  Composition of a melody, intelligent transposition, recasting it into a different rhythm, none of these require a body or an act of muscles. Likewise for creation of a theory.  The dream state in which the benzene ring problem was solved by Kekule involved no movement, no muscle behavior, no muscle activity as any part of the process. Part of your difficulty here is your inability to deal with the concepts of granularity, system as subsystem and systems as composed of subsystems.  A tiny part, given all the many issues involved, but these are certainly highlighted by this nonsense about 'something to control'.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,16:44    Quote (N.Wells @ May 07 2016,16:05)   Quote And FYI again, requirement 1 states... That remains a problematic and unjustified assertion.     Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2016,15:52)               Quote (N.Wells @ May 07 2016,15:25) Intelligence does not need something to control: dreaming. Then you should have no problem at all showing me an intelligent entity that has no body and is made of absolutely nothing. No, that doesn't follow at all.  You are insisting that there is no intelligence without something to control, yet dreaming is clearly a behavior associated with intelligence, even though it controls nothing and requires neither motor muscles nor confidence levels.   Quote Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). Reading comprehension problem? -------------- 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.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,16:51    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2016,17:44) Quote (N.Wells @ May 07 2016,16:05)   Quote And FYI again, requirement 1 states... That remains a problematic and unjustified assertion.       Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2016,15:52)               Quote (N.Wells @ May 07 2016,15:25) Intelligence does not need something to control: dreaming. Then you should have no problem at all showing me an intelligent entity that has no body and is made of absolutely nothing. No, that doesn't follow at all.  You are insisting that there is no intelligence without something to control, yet dreaming is clearly a behavior associated with intelligence, even though it controls nothing and requires neither motor muscles nor confidence levels.   Quote Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). Reading comprehension problem? No, error-laden source material. Give it up Gary.  You're wrong on this point.  Proofs have been provided.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,17:11    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2016,16:44)   Quote (N.Wells @ May 07 2016,16:05)     Quote And FYI again, requirement 1 states... That remains a problematic and unjustified assertion.         Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2016,15:52)                 Quote (N.Wells @ May 07 2016,15:25) Intelligence does not need something to control: dreaming. Then you should have no problem at all showing me an intelligent entity that has no body and is made of absolutely nothing. No, that doesn't follow at all.  You are insisting that there is no intelligence without something to control, yet dreaming is clearly a behavior associated with intelligence, even though it controls nothing and requires neither motor muscles nor confidence levels.     Quote Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). Reading comprehension problem? That's definitely a problem of reading comprehension on your part.  You are claiming that it's a "requirement for intelligence".  However, that's an unsupported assertion, and it's demonstrably wrong.  Intelligence in humans does not require "something to control".  Furthermore, for what it's worth, the presence of something controllable (which is basically everything that is material) does not indicate intelligence at work.  Where in RNA are circuits, let alone circuit requirements.  Where are its motor muscles?  It creates proteins but does not possess them or move them.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,17:15    And also the body we control when dreaming is "virtual" as opposed to "real". The basics of how our virtual world works has already been modeled, by me. The link is again: intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,17:19    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2016,17:15) And also the body we control when dreaming is "virtual" as opposed to "real". The basics of how our virtual world works has already been modeled, by me. The link is again: intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com Dreams do not require controlling a virtual body.  They don't require a body and other than lucid dreams they lack the ability to control anything. You haven't modelled how our virtual world works.  You have a computer program that you make all sorts of grandiose claims about, but without ground-truthing you haven't demonstrated that you have successfully modelled anything.  You have a program with fancy labels that as yet lack connection to anything real.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,17:44    Hopefully the rewrite will make it harder to misrepresent what I said: Quote Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements that are required for this ability, which are: [1] A body to control, either real or virtual, with motor muscle (molecular force powered, motor proteins, electric speakers, electronic write to a screen, motorized wheels). -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,18:02    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2016,17:44) Hopefully the rewrite will make it harder to misrepresent what I said:     Quote Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements that are required for this ability, which are: [1] A body to control, either real or virtual, with motor muscle (molecular force powered, motor proteins, electric speakers, electronic write to a screen, motorized wheels). We are not misrepresenting what you are saying: we are pointing out that exactly what you are saying makes no sense. Regardless, the new phrasing merely cements in your lunacy.  Intelligence does not "require" a "body" whether it be virtual or real, and motor muscles do do encompass electric speakers, electronic writes to screens, motor proteins, and/or motorized wheels.  And what is a molecular force powered? Remember that the only reason you are insisting on this insane confabulation is because long ago you doubled down on insisting on "bodies", which you then doubled down on defining as having "motor muscles".  If you hadn't been so concerned about not admitting to an error, you would have noticed that you could simply list "controlling such things as real or virtual bodies, muscles, electric speakers, computer screens, etc."*  You simply cannot reason your way out of an open box. *The absolutely hilarious thing here is that even if you could figure out the easy solution to your immediate problem, you'd still be horribly wrong, because at least some exemplars of behavior involving high levels of intelligence in humans simply do not require controlling anything. So, wrong.  Wrong on the correction.  Wrong on the fix to the correction.  Wrong on just about everything.  Please, go do something useful to support yourself and your family because this isn't working.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,18:04    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2016,18:44) Hopefully the rewrite will make it harder to misrepresent what I said: Quote Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements that are required for this ability, which are: [1] A body to control, either real or virtual, with motor muscle (molecular force powered, motor proteins, electric speakers, electronic write to a screen, motorized wheels). Tragically, it is still incorrect.   Again, consider why Turing Machine theory does not include 'a power sorce' as a necessary element of computation. But speaking of power sources, if we were to momentarily accept your category error as correct and insightful, we would then need to inquire why the intricate details of energy cycles, systems, processes, etc. are not called out as part of the "circuit diagram" or necessary conditions for intelligence. Why are the energy levels and ranges within rather tightly circumscribed constraints?  Etc. Give it up Gary.  Youre simply wrong here.  Also, too stupid to see why, and to try to explain why you are correct, were you in fact correct.   Changimg your deadly prose barely rises to the level of rearranging desk chairs on the Titanic.  It neither explains nor justifies your laughable assertion.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,18:22    Quote (N.Wells @ May 07 2016,18:02) Regardless, the new phrasing merely cements in your lunacy.  Intelligence does not "require" a "body" whether it be virtual or real, Then show me an intelligent entity that has no body, neither real or virtual, and can do nothing at all. You're making all kinds ridiculous assertions. And I know you cannot back them up with evidence, so you'll just act like a creep and throw more isults. -------------- 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.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,18:30    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2016,19:22) Quote (N.Wells @ May 07 2016,18:02) Regardless, the new phrasing merely cements in your lunacy.  Intelligence does not "require" a "body" whether it be virtual or real, Then show me an intelligent entity that has no body, neither real or virtual, and can do nothing at all. You're making all kinds ridiculous assertions. And I know you cannot back them up with evidence, so you'll just act like a creep and throw more isults. That is a complete non sequitur. Show me a computer that does not have a power supply.  Then explain why the theory of Turing Machines simply ignores every aspect of power while remaing fundamental the theory of computation. You're both clueless and barking mad. Do try to remember how this went when you finally broke down and admitted that the case of Stephen Hawking reduces your first criterion to "there has to be a body, whether it is controlled or not." Your first criterion  is irrelevant to a "theory of intelligence."

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,18:38    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2016,18:22) Quote (N.Wells @ May 07 2016,18:02) Regardless, the new phrasing merely cements in your lunacy.  Intelligence does not "require" a "body" whether it be virtual or real, Then show me an intelligent entity that has no body, neither real or virtual, and can do nothing at all. You're making all kinds ridiculous assertions. And I know you cannot back them up with evidence, so you'll just act like a creep and throw more isults. Look who's talking about a lack of reading comprehension.  Your section is about Intelligence, specifically requirements of intelligence, and one of the requirements according to you is something to control.  Dreaming is a behavior that requires intelligence.  Mentally composing a sonnet exalting your one true love is one of the behaviors that epitomizes human intelligence.  However, doing either of these need not require controlling a body. If an intelligent behavior does not come associated with one of your supposed requirements, then your requirements are not very good, are they? One of these days you are going to come up with a "sequitur" as opposed to your usual non sequiturs, and we are all going to fall over in astonishment. Nothing in any of this or in what I've said involves me requiring an intelligent entity that lacks a body.  (Heck, elsewhere I'm argued that you have to have neurons sufficiently concentrated together to form a brain, or something effectively equivalent, to have intelligence.)  Your claim is "intelligence requires something to control" - that is false, because some intelligent acts or behaviors do not involve controlling anything. Also, quit trying to throw charges back without answering them.  I've provided evidence, and you haven't.  Deal with it. Quote throw more isults.  Provide some actual valid arguments supporting your assertions and I'll discuss them with you.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,18:38    Before I ruin something that was good enough before I'm stopping here: Quote Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements that are required for this ability, which are: [1] A body to control, either real or virtual, with motor muscle including molecular actuation, motor proteins, speakers (a linear actuator), electronic write to a screen (instead of arm actuation), motorized wheels (rotary actuator). -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,18:42    Quote Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements that are required for this ability, which are: [1] A body to control, either real or virtual, with motor muscle including molecular actuation, motor proteins, speakers (a linear actuator), virtual write to a screen (instead of arm actuation), motorized wheels (rotary actuator). [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. [3] Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail. [4] Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,18:43    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2016,18:38) Before I ruin something that was good enough before I'm stopping here:   Quote Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements that are required for this ability, which are: [1] A body to control, either real or virtual, with motor muscle including molecular actuation, motor proteins, speakers (a linear actuator), electronic write to a screen (instead of arm actuation), motorized wheels (rotary actuator). In what universe does a motorized wheel or a speaker or generic molecular actuation constitute a motor muscle?  You have turned "motor muscle" into a completely meaningless term.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,18:45    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2016,19:38) Before I ruin something that was good enough before I'm stopping here: Quote Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements that are required for this ability, which are: [1] A body to control, either real or virtual, with motor muscle including molecular actuation, motor proteins, speakers (a linear actuator), electronic write to a screen (instead of arm actuation), motorized wheels (rotary actuator). It's still wrong and therefore not 'good enough'. But the rephrasing did catch my eye in one critical respect -- "behavior." You have either switched topic from intelligence as such (i.e., composing or recognizing a melody, creating a theory or a plot idea) to behavior, or you have dived head-first into the madness of strict behaviorism a la Skinner. Regardless of which it is, your first criterion is shown to be rubbish.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2016,18:47    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2016,18:42) Quote Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements that are required for this ability, which are: [1] A body to control, either real or virtual, with motor muscle including molecular actuation, motor proteins, speakers (a linear actuator), virtual write to a screen (instead of arm actuation), motorized wheels (rotary actuator). [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. [3] Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail. [4] Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”. So much for stopping.  You still haven't begun to address the most serious problems.

Pages: (622) < ... 549 550 551 552 553 [554] 555 556 557 558 559 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard