k.e..
Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007
|
| Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 16 2015,05:46) | According to Gary, | Quote | That is from an overall constructive discussion (which over three years ago ended) from the first topic I ever posted in that forum!
http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....t-31405
It's an example of what happens when my IDeas are not battled using "wretched arguments in enormous, repetitive, voluminosity, as seen in this thread..."
At the Kurzweil AI forum the theory issue is now ancient history. The regular members understand what I was saying as it pertains to cognitive science and biology. Forum staff do not mind the computer models and other things that came out of discussion. I help show how valuable of a service they are to someone like me. |
Well, that certainly seems to put us in our place. Guaranteed experts generally understood his points and did not object, and a good and productive conversation was had by all. But wait, this is Gary talking! Have we learned that Gary is always careful and never makes false assertions, or is there just occasionally, just once in a while, a little tiny gap, barely noticeable really, between Gary and reality as everyone else knows it? Aw heck, I'm almost starting to feel guilty about checking up on whatever he says.........
So, following Tony's fine example, let's distill that Kurzweil thread for the essence of various people's opinions about Gary's ideas:
Provoketur: | Quote |
lie more and continue to ignore anyone that makes concrete observations.
Its like having a discussion with redq. hardly worth the effort. |
Quotheraving: | Quote | There's so many flaws with this that it's hard to know where to begin so I'll pick each apart in the order they appear. .... This displays either a complete misunderstanding of what intelligence implies or worse an attempt at redefinition of terms. In my experience such redefinitions are signs of sophism and semantic gymnastics similar to redefining black as 'dark grey' in order to have a basis to argue incrementally towards the statement that black is white.
This not only fails to "operationally define intelligence" but also manages to be a tautology and so vague as to be essentially meaningless. All you do is state the obvious (intelligence producing algorithms allow electronic intelligence) and offer this up as though it were proof that a constituents behaviour explains the behaviour of the whole which is not only no kind of support for your later argument but is patently false. There are numerous examples of systems where their behaviour arises as an emergent property at a certain scale rather than as an inherent property at all scales.
You are mixing things up. Traditional 'religious' Intelligent design only requires that complex organisms be the result of an intelligent creator. Your 'theory' which you term intelligent design however argues that intelligence is an innate property existing at all scales and that each higher strata is produced as a result of intelligent behaviour of the strata below. For this to be called intelligent design you must first show that the behaviour of lower scales is actually intelligent (capable of choosing a better course of action from a range of less favorable responses) and that the higher levels are designed (made intentionally) you manage neither.
........................
Non random implies order which implies rules, it does not imply intelligence. Stating that ordered behaviour at the atomic behaviour allows for further complexity of behaviour at the molecular layer is nothing more than stating the obvious, calling this intelligence rather than simply complex behaviour however is a mistake.
............................
Again you ascribe purpose to selection displaying a poor understanding of Darwinism.
Yes the genome is the end result of previous iterations of mutation which were each a succesful adaptation, but it does not therefore constitute true memory, the ability to consciously choose between options, let alone the ability to model the environment
...........................
You claim much but deliver less than nothing. Essentially this whole stinky and shaky edifice is based on nothing more than unsupported claims and a casual redefinition and/or misapplication of basic terms such as intelligence, memory and choice. To my eyes this is an object lesson on the need for clear definitions of important terms.
................................
My point is that each scale is different and that this difference renders the term intelligence inapplicable and the entire basis for his argument moot Not to mention it completely fails at it's claim to show an alternative to natural selection. So less troll food and more wild unsupported claims and a poor choice of name.
....................
I think you are unaware of how presenting a theory works... you provide the evidence!
Though first you should clearly define your terms and provide a strong and logically sound argument with pertinent evidence as support. However you haven't provided any real evidence, and certainly nothing that would convince anyone with a passing familiarity in highschool level science.
You do however build an argument resting on unsupported claims, misapplied terms and stating the obvious as though it supported your argument when it doesn't. Ultimately producing what amounts to little more than an exercise in sophistry.
| Quote | | Gary: Or in other words you demand a unscientific explanation that does not follow any known scientific laws/theories, so that you continue to believe that a scientific explanation is unscientific. |
No, quite the opposite really. I demand a coherent logical argument supported by pertinent evidence and ideally consistent with the known scientific laws/theories in order for me to view a theory as scientific... You singularly fail in this regard and hence I consider your effort unscientific.
Handwaving away fundamental problems does not make your essential premise any more sound, nor any less an exercise in semantics rather than science.
..........................
However this goes far beyond poor use of language. It begins with messy semantics, generating confusion by shifting between levels that should be considered on their own virtues and described by reference to their own particular behaviours, then uses the resultant confusions to support conclusions that are laughably and patently false. Which is why I consider this argument specious... it's nearly a textbook example of sophistry.
............................
Your language here is mangled, but even when corrected (ironically by a "best guess") your idea has obviously confused levels of abstraction. ...........You have erected a straw man, namely that some "atheistic contamination of science" relies on a false idea (that being the randomness of chemical reactions) to support their anti-ID anti-Creationist worldview, but nothing could be further from the truth.
With all due respect, and apologies if I have gotten something basically wrong, but If even a crackpot like me can come along and without much trouble DESTROY your silly thinking (or knowing propaganda, if you are that cynical), what chance do you think you stand against real scientists? The thought that you want to contaminate science with this crap, and that you think science is currently contaminated by opposite notions, is troubling to me. |
EyeOrderChaos: | Quote | Deepak Chopra has been churning out this kind of stuff too ...........
I think it's obvious that they are thoughts about human bias, motivations, comfort levels; I think it's obvious how it pertains to the subject; I think it's obvious that you want to appear to be trying, begging, pleading to keep the debate here in the realm of science but sir we are not even close to science yet, starting with your submission.
................................
The consensus so far is that you are not being logically coherent in your use, your intended application, of the word "intelligence", and in your assertions of what the scientific consensus is regarding random versus nonrandom behaviors of various configurations of matter. I would agree with these criticicms. However, don't let any of that discourage you, how to arrive at an operational definition of intelligence is not without controversy, I think, and if you think you are really on to something why not keep pluggin away at it? Also, why not learn from the criticisms while youre at it?. To be honest though, I don't think you have the makings of a good theory, because your definition of intelligence involves a tautology, an ontological indeterminism: "It's intelligent because it's purposeful because it's optimized for the environment because it's designed because it's purposeful because it's intelligent". Plus, I don't think your understanding of what randomness is and isn't and what it does and does not import to the "design" arguments is very good. |
Field Man: | Quote | | So, in other words, you aren't gonna get your paper published in any reputable journal, nor supported by anyone who actually reads it and is knowledgable about the basics of science. You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that. |
{i}Pan: | Quote | | The VERY FACT that you are doing your utmost to evade and dodge these questions makes EVERYTHING you do from this point SUSPICIOUS. The FACT that you are doing everything you can to slide past these direct and simple questions shows that you are not being honest. |
Yessiree Bob, ringing endorsements, every last one of them. |
| Quote | | In my experience such redefinitions are signs of sophism and semantic gymnastics is similar to redefining black as 'dark grey' in order to have a basis to argue incrementally towards the statement that black is white. |
WOW! Gary on a par with Dembski? NOW THAT'S AN ENDORSEMENT!
--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
|
