RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 430 431 432 433 434 [435] 436 437 438 439 440 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2015,22:56   

Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 03 2015,22:45)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 03 2015,22:26)
At least it is now obvious to unbiased readers why I started in a community where I previously published for that is interested in novel computer models, not a religiously motivated loony bin like this one that can't understand anything.

You've got two choices, Gary: A) Stick with your oh-so-wonderful-to-you stuff in its current form, which no one can understand and which does not entice anyone to try, or B) fix its flaws, produce some supporting evidence, and rewrite it well enough that people can understand it.  You've now garnered the exact same criticisms from everyone who has tried to read your stuff, from the scientists whom you hoped would fawn over your ideas in awe of their stupendousness to the religionists whom you hoped would fawn over your ideas out of gratitude for your support.  None of what you want is going to happen.  So, are you going to blame the messengers, or do something about why your drivel is so roundly rejected?

You are no help at all. The only thing that you and the other creeps are good for is helping to destroy a person's life and livelihood by helping to throw discrediting insults that only prove how scientifically useless you are.

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

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2015,23:00   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 04 2015,04:26)
At least it is now obvious to unbiased readers why I started in a community where I previously published for that is interested in novel computer models, not a religiously motivated loony bin like this one that can't understand anything.

Gary, do you still believe that having your VBasic program accepted for publication at PSC means that PSC have therefore endorsed your 'theory'?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2015,04:24   

Words cannot express how DAMN ANGRY I AM AT ALL THE PIECES OF SHIT THAT STINK OF THE DISCIPLINE OF SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!

--------------
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: Feb. 04 2015,04:25   

Words cannot express how DAMN ANGRY I AM AT ALL THE PIECES OF SHIT THAT STINK UP THE DISCIPLINE OF SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!

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

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2015,06:14   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 04 2015,04:26)
Words cannot express how DAMN ANGRY I AM AT ALL THE PIECES OF SHIT THAT STINK UP THE DISCIPLINE OF SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!

Well, throwing a tantrum will certainly convince the world you're right.

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

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2015,06:51   

I have another long day at my day job then when I come home more evening work, just so I can afford food and to pay my taxes to support the scumbags and the damage they do to us all. Then this weekend I get to do the same, while those who think they know-it-all throw stones for my not having done enough for them.

--------------
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: Feb. 04 2015,06:58   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 04 2015,07:51)
I have another long day at my day job then when I come home more evening work, just so I can afford food and to pay my taxes to support the scumbags and the damage they do to us all. Then this weekend I get to do the same, while those who think they know-it-all throw stones for my not having done enough for them.

No, we "throw stones" because you haven't done anything for us.  Nor for science.

Pity that in your relentless repeat posting you only got the first one correct.  Obviously you are tired of the 'stink of science' that permeates the places you choose to pollute with your anti-scientific nonsense.
As has been noted before, sucks to be you.
As has also been noted before, if you hate it so much, why are you still here?  Unable to guess a different approach?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2015,07:01   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 03 2015,23:56)
Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 03 2015,22:45)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 03 2015,22:26)
At least it is now obvious to unbiased readers why I started in a community where I previously published for that is interested in novel computer models, not a religiously motivated loony bin like this one that can't understand anything.

You've got two choices, Gary: A) Stick with your oh-so-wonderful-to-you stuff in its current form, which no one can understand and which does not entice anyone to try, or B) fix its flaws, produce some supporting evidence, and rewrite it well enough that people can understand it.  You've now garnered the exact same criticisms from everyone who has tried to read your stuff, from the scientists whom you hoped would fawn over your ideas in awe of their stupendousness to the religionists whom you hoped would fawn over your ideas out of gratitude for your support.  None of what you want is going to happen.  So, are you going to blame the messengers, or do something about why your drivel is so roundly rejected?

You are no help at all. The only thing that you and the other creeps are good for is helping to destroy a person's life and livelihood by helping to throw discrediting insults that only prove how scientifically useless you are.

Oh, Gary, such a tardfest.

The key question that comes out of all this is just how 'throwing discrediting insults' can result in proving that the throwers are 'scientifically useless'?
Not that anyone on earth, with the possible exception of some of the voices in your head, consider you even remotely qualified to judge what is or is not 'scientifically useful'.
You quite clearly haven't a clue about science.  You demonstrate this on a daily basis.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2015,07:19   

This is priceless.
           
Quote
This is one example of what fifthmonarchyman is unable to understand:

           
Quote
   A behavior qualifies as intelligent behavior by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] body (or modeling platform) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic “write” to a screen) to control, [2] memory addressed by sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are separate data elements, [3] confidence (central hedonic, homeostasis) system that increments (stored in memory) confidence value of a successful motor action else decrements the confidence value, [4] guess new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases (and if not prerandomized motor data then when first addressed). For flagella powered cells reversing motor direction can produce a tumble to a new heading direction, guess where to go.

   The IBM Watson system that won at Jeopardy qualifies as intelligent. Word combinations for hypotheses were guessed then tested against memory for confidence in each being a hypothesis that is true, and whether confident enough in its best answer to “push the buzzer”. The Watson platform simply had a speaker (for vocal muscles) and muscles guiding a pen was simulated by an electric powered writing device.


First, and least, we note yet again your complete inability to distinguish between necessary and sufficient conditions for membership in a class.  That Watson qualifies as intelligent [to whom exactly?] by use of guesses [ahem, hardly, and you've yet to address the fact that a guess is itself an act of intelligence] and uses a motor control system does not in any way shape or form indicate that these factors are necessary conditions of intelligence in any and all occurrences.
Rocks don't guess.  Intelligent things do.  Guessing is a product of intelligence, not an 'unintelligent' ingredient that contributes to the emergence of intelligence.

But really, the very best part of this screed is how you double-down on the stupid, and prove once and for all that your "theory" is a massive and irremediable failure.
We have demonstrated, rather exhaustively, that characteristic [1] is not a necessary condition for intelligence.  We have demonstrated, rather exhaustively, that characteristic [2] is not a necessary condition for intelligence.  We have demonstrated, rather exhaustively, that characteristic [3] is a part of intelligence, not an ingredient that goes into generating or 'causing' intelligence.  We've demonstrated, rather exhaustively, that characteristic [4] is another element or part of intelligence, not a precondition or ingredient that goes into generating or 'causing' intelligence.
Thus, your 4 'qualifications' for intelligence have jointly and  severally been falsified.
You lose.  You are simply and entirely wrong, your "theory" is not just nonsense, it is a tragic-comic mix of the blatantly and entirely false and the hopelessly circular.

Well, that or else such phenomena as composition of a melody, recognition of a transposed melody played on a different instrument and at a different tempo, harmonization of a melody in alternative music systems or styles, enumeration of a list of items, counting in general, solving algebraic equations, generation of a theory, creation of a plot line for a story, any sort of planning for future action, any act of fantasy or day-dreaming, and so on without number, do not count as 'intelligent'.   Were that what you actually meant, your use of the word 'learn' and its variants suddenly becomes a trivial irrelevancy in the vast madness of your delusions.

Suck it up.  You're resurrecting the extreme form of the long-discredited behaviorism of B.F. Skinner, with seasonings of madness not least due to your complete and  total ignorance of even such science as prevailed in Skinner's day.
You've lost.  You've got nothing.  The very best you could do with your "theory" is remove it from the web, abandon all attention to it, and start over from scratch, having eliminated one giant false and hopeless trail.
That you will not is as inexorable a fact as the law of gravity.
You are faced with the adversity of facts.  As they tend to do, they destroy the very foundations of your sad little notions.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2015,07:38   

How are your teeth holding up, Gary?

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2015,08:18   

Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 04 2015,15:38)
How are your teeth holding up, Gary?

He'll be complaining that the dental cabal is in league with the black helicopter brigade soon.

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

  
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2015,09:40   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 04 2015,06:51)
I have another long day at my day job then when I come home more evening work, just so I can afford food and to pay my taxes to support the scumbags and the damage they do to us all. Then this weekend I get to do the same, while those who think they know-it-all throw stones for my not having done enough for them.

You've pretty accurately described the lives of most people on the planet, even in wealthy countries such as the USA.  Your hostility toward scientists and critics here and at UD especially is misplaced IMO, however.  If you're having trouble winning over fifthmonarchyman, then you definitely have some issues to resolve.

At least you have some time to tinker with your program, even if it never ends up going anywhere.  

I don't know the details of your day job, but from what you have posted, it's more interesting than some.  I'm sure it's better than some of the sucky jobs I've had.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2015,10:35   

Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 04 2015,14:18)
Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 04 2015,15:38)
How are your teeth holding up, Gary?

He'll be complaining that the dental cabal is in league with the black helicopter brigade soon.

Big Denta.

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2015,12:00   

It spewed:  
Quote
At least it is now obvious to unbiased readers why I started in a community where I previously published for that is interested in novel computer models, not a religiously motivated loony bin like this one that can't understand anything.


Let's see, one, two, three, at least four verbs (is, is, published and understand) in one sentence; and, sheesh, even commas can't fix, 'published for that is interested . . '.  

Incomprehensible, Goo Goo.  HOW CAN WE EVEN TELL IF IT'S SCIENCE???

No, this is nothing more than schlock comedy . . . . :)  :)  :)

Whatta hoot!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2015,12:03   

Quote
How are your teeth holding up, Gary?


Shemp Howard comes readily to mind.  ;)

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2015,12:33   

Quote (NoName @ Feb. 04 2015,07:19)
This is priceless.
             
Quote
This is one example of what fifthmonarchyman is unable to understand:

             
Quote
   A behavior qualifies as intelligent behavior by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] body (or modeling platform) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic “write” to a screen) to control, [2] memory addressed by sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are separate data elements, [3] confidence (central hedonic, homeostasis) system that increments (stored in memory) confidence value of a successful motor action else decrements the confidence value, [4] guess new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases (and if not prerandomized motor data then when first addressed). For flagella powered cells reversing motor direction can produce a tumble to a new heading direction, guess where to go.

   The IBM Watson system that won at Jeopardy qualifies as intelligent. Word combinations for hypotheses were guessed then tested against memory for confidence in each being a hypothesis that is true, and whether confident enough in its best answer to “push the buzzer”. The Watson platform simply had a speaker (for vocal muscles) and muscles guiding a pen was simulated by an electric powered writing device.


First, and least, we note yet again your complete inability to distinguish between necessary and sufficient conditions for membership in a class.  That Watson qualifies as intelligent [to whom exactly?] by use of guesses [ahem, hardly, and you've yet to address the fact that a guess is itself an act of intelligence] and uses a motor control system does not in any way shape or form indicate that these factors are necessary conditions of intelligence in any and all occurrences.
Rocks don't guess.  Intelligent things do.  Guessing is a product of intelligence, not an 'unintelligent' ingredient that contributes to the emergence of intelligence.

But really, the very best part of this screed is how you double-down on the stupid, and prove once and for all that your "theory" is a massive and irremediable failure.
We have demonstrated, rather exhaustively, that characteristic [1] is not a necessary condition for intelligence.  We have demonstrated, rather exhaustively, that characteristic [2] is not a necessary condition for intelligence.  We have demonstrated, rather exhaustively, that characteristic [3] is a part of intelligence, not an ingredient that goes into generating or 'causing' intelligence.  We've demonstrated, rather exhaustively, that characteristic [4] is another element or part of intelligence, not a precondition or ingredient that goes into generating or 'causing' intelligence.
Thus, your 4 'qualifications' for intelligence have jointly and  severally been falsified.
You lose.  You are simply and entirely wrong, your "theory" is not just nonsense, it is a tragic-comic mix of the blatantly and entirely false and the hopelessly circular.

Well, that or else such phenomena as composition of a melody, recognition of a transposed melody played on a different instrument and at a different tempo, harmonization of a melody in alternative music systems or styles, enumeration of a list of items, counting in general, solving algebraic equations, generation of a theory, creation of a plot line for a story, any sort of planning for future action, any act of fantasy or day-dreaming, and so on without number, do not count as 'intelligent'.   Were that what you actually meant, your use of the word 'learn' and its variants suddenly becomes a trivial irrelevancy in the vast madness of your delusions.

Suck it up.  You're resurrecting the extreme form of the long-discredited behaviorism of B.F. Skinner, with seasonings of madness not least due to your complete and  total ignorance of even such science as prevailed in Skinner's day.
You've lost.  You've got nothing.  The very best you could do with your "theory" is remove it from the web, abandon all attention to it, and start over from scratch, having eliminated one giant false and hopeless trail.
That you will not is as inexorable a fact as the law of gravity.
You are faced with the adversity of facts.  As they tend to do, they destroy the very foundations of your sad little notions.

It's not clear what constitutes a guess in lower organisms, particularly in terms of how Gary is using the word.  I wouldn't have said that guessing is inherently intelligent ("educated guesses" certainly are, but how much intelligence is involved in determining when to turn and how far to travel in a random walk, or in following an algorithm?)  Rationally evaluating the results of a guess certainly qualifies as intelligent behaviour, but including mutations as "guessing" by genomes, and propagation of successful genes and genetically determined behaviors via natural selection as "learning" and bundling both as "intelligence" seems truly stupid.

Gary could make hay with the Cambrian explosion: it is an interesting phenomenon and it is not yet satisfactorily explained.  The beginnings of intelligence (in the broad sense, but not as broad as Gary's usage) is one of the potentially important new factors, but so too are significant advances in the homeobox gene complex (which probably made possible subsequent fast evolution of animals), as well as development of macropredation and corresponding development of hard parts, mobility and evasive behaviour (which do require muscles, coordinated muscle control, and concentrations of neurons that represent the start of brains).  Oxygen levels and ocean biochemistry could also have been important.  If Gary wants his explanation for the Cambrian explosion to win, he needs to show why his ideas offer better explanations for it than the alternatives: basing a causal argument on the observation that his model produces a growth-to-a-plateau curve is ridiculous.  Rate of reaction curves (% completion over time) show the same pattern: e.g. http://scienceaid.co.uk/chemist....rea.jpg .  Does that mean that dissolution of sugar caused the Cambrian explosion?

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2015,13:52   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 03 2015,22:26)
At least it is now obvious to unbiased readers why I started in a community where I previously published for that is interested in novel computer models, not a religiously motivated loony bin like this one that can't understand anything.

I understood enough to recognize that the PSC codebase contained no neural network models whatsoever, not even those of Arnold Trehub, and that it didn't even go so far as incorporating David Heiserman's methods for doing what he would have called good guessing. I also understand that the sole "novelty" of the PSC codebase so far as models go is to implement Heiserman's alpha and beta code in VB6, which is not the usual way one would deploy the phrase, "novel model".

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2015,17:36   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 03 2015,21:52)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 03 2015,21:08)
I simply need to give up on those who are too busy with their religious crusades (including Atheist zealots) to care about science.

You've been saying that for years.  Perhaps you should make a better guess?

Perhaps you did not notice that I almost entirely stopped updating the theory. The only new plans I have considered over the past few months is to delete it and all backups from the internet and my computer, leave one last message in this forum explaining why I don't care anymore, then never return to this forum ever again.

I don't know for sure what your game is but since I am not trying to become a career scientist I now have no plans to publish it in any science journal. The industry already made it clear that such a theory is not welcomed and will not even be reviewed so I would almost certainly only waste more of my life by trying.

If the best this forum and others like it can do is throw insults after I tried to explain something so valuable then they deserve nothing from me, ever again..

--------------
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: Feb. 04 2015,18:20   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 04 2015,18:36)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 03 2015,21:52)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 03 2015,21:08)
I simply need to give up on those who are too busy with their religious crusades (including Atheist zealots) to care about science.

You've been saying that for years.  Perhaps you should make a better guess?

Perhaps you did not notice that I almost entirely stopped updating the theory. The only new plans I have considered over the past few months is to delete it and all backups from the internet and my computer, leave one last message in this forum explaining why I don't care anymore, then never return to this forum ever again.

I don't know for sure what your game is but since I am not trying to become a career scientist I now have no plans to publish it in any science journal. The industry already made it clear that such a theory is not welcomed and will not even be reviewed so I would almost certainly only waste more of my life by trying.

If the best this forum and others like it can do is throw insults after I tried to explain something so valuable then they deserve nothing from me, ever again..

The best that this and other forums you have infested over the years have done is considerably more, and better, than merely throw insults at you.  You'd know it, too, if you were capable of even minimal acts of genuine intelligence.

Perhaps you did not notice but people spent hours and hours over weeks and months trying to help you improve your appalling verbiage.  People have spent hours and hours asking you good-faith questions, seeking clarification of just what you were going on about, what you meant by various key terms, how your "theory" would address various potential criticisms based on perceived weaknesses it contains.  You never stepped up to any of the questions or challenges, you just got huffy about how horribly you were being treated.  Yeah, like that's all down to everybody else, you're one of God's *special* snowflakes.
All you actually are is a flake.

Perhaps you have noticed that your "theory" is of value to no one but yourself.  And you have quite distinctly failed to treat it as an item of value.  You have never explained anything, and I for one doubt you ever could.  You can't even defend your abuse of the word 'learn' and its variants, even in the face of clear and unambiguous evidence that your usage is not the usage of Cognitive Science.  Nor have you defended your egregious abuse of the work of Trehub or Heiserman.  Your 'ground breaking insight' that there are features of the universe best explained by intelligent agency is banal at best; known to most 3 year olds.  Without further qualification beyond "some features", you've got nothing.

By all means, delete all copies of your effluent.  Your swill is undeserving of further attention even by you, let alone persons with brain cells able to communicate using some means better than a pair of tattered signal flags.  Go away, don't let the electrons hit you on the ass on your way out.
But do please keep in mind going forward that this was all avoidable, all the issues come down to you and your various mis-, map-, and non-behavior.
Your the one who's made an epic failure of your life and your 'work'.  Wallow in it.  According to your "theory", it seems to be just what you were aiming at.
The worst fate anyone could wish on you is that you live out your life as yourself.  As you doubtlessly will.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2015,18:35   

Quote (socle @ Feb. 04 2015,09:40)
I don't know the details of your day job, but from what you have posted, it's more interesting than some.  I'm sure it's better than some of the sucky jobs I've had.

Yes it probably is better than some of the sucky jobs you have had, and I don't have to feed smelly turds into a machine or other "science job" that would make the average person barf.

And by the way Barry deleted a couple of my posts asking for a testable explanation. I might be banned again. With UD having been promoted on the radio he's likely trying to make it look good. But as long as this one (quoting the conclusion from the theory) that shows up on at least my screen is not deleted then I'm happy:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-546059

If you kept up with what's going on in the ID movement beyond UD then you would likely come to the same conclusion that indicates they noticed the opportunity of a lifetime to very publicly embarrass their deep-pocket adversaries who deserve to be exposed as a bunch of paper-pushers who are only interested in proper grammar that fits-in with what they are used to and wouldn't know a science changing theory until it bites them in the ass really hard, a whole bunch of times. So at least the theory and I still have something exciting to look forward to.

--------------
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: Feb. 04 2015,19:07   

Quote
Perhaps you did not notice that I almost entirely stopped updating the theory.
Well, I noticed that it remains crappy.  

 
Quote
The only new plans I have considered over the past few months is to delete it and all backups from the internet and my computer
 Great - release those little electrons back into the wild, where they can do some good for once.  Maybe the world will get a charge out of it.

 
Quote
, leave one last message in this forum explaining why I don't care anymore, then never return to this forum ever again. ...... If the best this forum and others like it can do is throw insults after I tried to explain something so valuable then they deserve nothing from me, ever again..

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog.....lin.jpg
It's not valuable.

 
Quote
then never return to this forum ever again
You keep promising.......
Really, go and do something more beneficial.

  
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2015,21:52   

Quote
Yes it probably is better than some of the sucky jobs you have had, and I don't have to feed smelly turds into a machine or other "science job" that would make the average person barf.

See, it's not so bad after all.  
 
Quote
If you kept up with what's going on in the ID movement beyond UD then you would likely come to the same conclusion that indicates they noticed the opportunity of a lifetime to very publicly embarrass their deep-pocket adversaries who deserve to be exposed as a bunch of paper-pushers who are only interested in proper grammar that fits-in with what they are used to and wouldn't know a science changing theory until it bites them in the ass really hard, a whole bunch of times. So at least the theory and I still have something exciting to look forward to.

I didn't know that the ID Movement extended much beyond UD these days, so I definitely missed this.  Do you have any specific information on this bit of intrigue?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,06:29   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 04 2015,19:35)
... So at least the theory and I still have something exciting to look forward to.

Ah, thanks for bringing that notion to the table.
Aside from the risible idea that your "theory" has expectations, can 'look forward to' something, you've exposed another serious flaw in your "theory."
To wit, expectation, anticipation are acts of intelligence.
Oddly enough, they involve no motor control, no confidence evaluation, and would appear to involve no sensory addressed memory as a 'prime mover'.  You might try to suggest that there is a 'guess' component, but we've already shown that guesses are acts of intelligence, not ingredients or pre-requisistes for it.
So, yet another own-goal, another bullet in that poor abused foot.
Say goodbye Gary, you're done.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,06:51   

Quote (socle @ Feb. 04 2015,21:52)
I didn't know that the ID Movement extended much beyond UD these days, so I definitely missed this.  Do you have any specific information on this bit of intrigue?

You need to compare the old tactics that got the movement in trouble in Dover by not revealing the identity of the designer to the new science friendly tactics (I have been talking about at UD and this forum) that openly use the word "Creator". Where there is a scientific theory like the one I developed UD in time becomes the BioLogos of ID theory, and can talk about our Creator/God/Allah/etc. all they want without it mattering to science. As with Darwinian theory the scientific theory can still be taught in the public schools. One example is the vocabulary Casey used in the radio broadcast reported in this article:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-future

You have to pay attention to the small details that parallel what I have been explaining.

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

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,07:12   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2015,14:51)
Quote (socle @ Feb. 04 2015,21:52)
I didn't know that the ID Movement extended much beyond UD these days, so I definitely missed this.  Do you have any specific information on this bit of intrigue?

You need to compare the old tactics that got the movement in trouble in Dover by not revealing the identity of the designer to the new science friendly tactics (I have been talking about at UD and this forum) that openly use the word "Creator". Where there is a scientific theory like the one I developed UD in time becomes the BioLogos of ID theory, and can talk about our Creator/God/Allah/etc. all they want without it mattering to science. As with Darwinian theory the scientific theory can still be taught in the public schools. One example is the vocabulary Casey used in the radio broadcast reported in this article:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-future

You have to pay attention to the small details that parallel what I have been explaining.

Nonsense you only have a non Turing Braitenberg vehicle which wouldn't stand up in a court of law.

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

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,07:36   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2015,07:51)
Quote (socle @ Feb. 04 2015,21:52)
I didn't know that the ID Movement extended much beyond UD these days, so I definitely missed this.  Do you have any specific information on this bit of intrigue?

You need to compare the old tactics that got the movement in trouble in Dover by not revealing the identity of the designer to the new science friendly tactics (I have been talking about at UD and this forum) that openly use the word "Creator". Where there is a scientific theory like the one I developed UD in time becomes the BioLogos of ID theory, and can talk about our Creator/God/Allah/etc. all they want without it mattering to science. As with Darwinian theory the scientific theory can still be taught in the public schools. One example is the vocabulary Casey used in the radio broadcast reported in this article:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-future

You have to pay attention to the small details that parallel what I have been explaining.

Nonsense.
You've been explaining nothing.  'Explaining' is a concept you toss about as if you knew what it meant, knew how to do it.  It is obvious to all that neither is true.

You do not have a 'scientific theory'.  What makes you think you do?  If there were just one question you could answer with a full explanation, that is the one I would probably find most interesting -- what are the 'facts on the ground' that make you categorize your output as a 'theory'?  As 'scientific'?
Not your silly toy software, your 'theory'.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,08:17   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2015,07:51)
...
You have to pay attention to the small details that parallel what I have been explaining.

We have been.  Your stuff is nonsense all the way down.
The smallest detail, and the rock on which your enterprise founders, is that you fail to distinguish between necessary, sufficient, and accidental conditions.
Rocks are not intelligent.
Composers of symphonies are.
You are starkly and obviously unable to present what distinguishes the two.

Your "theory" tosses out a few conditions that may indeed be conditions for the existence of intelligence.  But those conditions simply do not apply in many many other cases that we count as intelligence.  So you have not identified the necessary conditions for intelligence -- those things without which a thing is not intelligent.
Aside, of course, from the utterly banal observation that intelligence is always founded on molecules.  No molecules, no intelligence.  But that tells us next to nothing because of the countless things made up of molecules that are not intelligent.  So molecular makeup is not, in and of itself, a differentiator for intelligence or its absence.  Nothing that you have presented serves as such a differentiator.  You've fled the field of discussion whenever you have been challenged to present a differentiator.
Give it up, delete all your crap and stay home.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,08:51   

A bit of background about why I came to this forum.

I am an ex-chemist with a grounding in organic analysis. I stumbled across the phrase "molecular intelligence" and came here to see this new research into an area of chemistry of which I hadn't heard.

Imagine my disappointment when I discovered it was just an unsubstantiated and untested assertion by a creationist trying to smuggle "the Trinity" into science. Even worse was the time I wasted trying to make sense of 40+ pages of incomprehensible drivel. It should be a criminal act to mangle the English language like that.

So, Mr Gaulin, are you going to test this assertion and publish your test results as evidence so that we can verify them? Or, as I suspect, are you just going to throw insults and ignore the need for YOU to provide said evidence?

I would like to thank sincerely the efforts, patience and stamina of both NoName and N. Wells for exposing the stupidity of this "theory".

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,09:17   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 05 2015,09:51)
A bit of background about why I came to this forum.

I am an ex-chemist with a grounding in organic analysis. I stumbled across the phrase "molecular intelligence" and came here to see this new research into an area of chemistry of which I hadn't heard.

Imagine my disappointment when I discovered it was just an unsubstantiated and untested assertion by a creationist trying to smuggle "the Trinity" into science. Even worse was the time I wasted trying to make sense of 40+ pages of incomprehensible drivel. It should be a criminal act to mangle the English language like that.

So, Mr Gaulin, are you going to test this assertion and publish your test results as evidence so that we can verify them? Or, as I suspect, are you just going to throw insults and ignore the need for YOU to provide said evidence?

I would like to thank sincerely the efforts, patience and stamina of both NoName and N. Wells for exposing the stupidity of this "theory".

You're more than welcome.
For what it's worth, Gary's been running the same schtick for over 6 years, running amok wildly across the web.  The odds of him ever doing anything other than flinging insults and running from questions and challenges are as close to absolute zero as we can get in a floating-point world.

You might find various of these books interesting:
Incomplete Nature, Terrance W. Deacon
What is Life?  How Chemistry Becomes Biology, Addy Pross
Life's Ratchet: How Molecular Machines Extract Order from Chaos, Peter M. Hoffmann
Into the Cooll: Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life, Eric D. Schneider and Dorion Sagan

The second and third are the most focused on molecular-level issues, with the first incorporating a substantial amount as well.  The fourth delves into the realm of thermodynamics, an area Gary is not only profoundly ignorant of, but also an area he prefers to disregard entirely.  He's almost as afraid of thermodynamics as he is of evidence.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,17:07   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 05 2015,08:51)
A bit of background about why I came to this forum.

I am an ex-chemist with a grounding in organic analysis. I stumbled across the phrase "molecular intelligence" and came here to see this new research into an area of chemistry of which I hadn't heard.

Imagine my disappointment when I discovered it was just an unsubstantiated and untested assertion by a creationist trying to smuggle "the Trinity" into science. Even worse was the time I wasted trying to make sense of 40+ pages of incomprehensible drivel. It should be a criminal act to mangle the English language like that.

So, Mr Gaulin, are you going to test this assertion and publish your test results as evidence so that we can verify them? Or, as I suspect, are you just going to throw insults and ignore the need for YOU to provide said evidence?

I would like to thank sincerely the efforts, patience and stamina of both NoName and N. Wells for exposing the stupidity of this "theory".

If you are unable to make sense of anything I said then I would only be wasting my time on someone who wants to see "drivel" from a creationist trying to smuggle "the Trinity" into science.

But for everyone else this is what the "ex-chemist" is unable to figure out:

Quote
From:
https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf

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, to self-replicate.

REQUIREMENT #1 of 4 - SOMETHING TO CONTROL

The catalytic (chemically reacts with other molecules without itself changing to a new molecular species) ability of ribonucleotide (A,G,C,U) bases combine to form useful molecular machinery. Where properly combined into strands 100 or more bases in length they become a rapidly moving molecule that can control/catalyze other molecules in their environment, and each other, including to induce each others replication. Unlike RNA that exists inside a protective cell membrane these RNA's are directly influenced by the planetary environment, which they are free to control. Modern examples include viruses that over time learned how to control the internal environment of their host to self-assemble protective shells with sensors on the outside for detecting suitable host cells to enter and control. After invading the cells other sensors detect when conditions are right to simultaneously reproduce, thereby overwhelming the immune system of their hosts, which would 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 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 the action responses of its code/memory to nearby molecules, and to each other. Their activity also changes their molecular environment, much the same way as living things have over time changed the atmosphere and chemistry of our planet. This suggests self-organization of a complex collective molecular self-learning system involving diverse molecular systems, which both compete with and sustain each other.

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 they cause are successful responses, which stay in the collective memory. Molecular species that fail are soon replaced by another more successful (good 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 such a rapidly replicating molecule RNA editing1 type mechanisms can become a significant source of guesses. Also, molecular affinity, which is in part measured by the hydropathy index, will favor assimilation of complimentary ribonucleotides. Where these are in limited abundance the next best fitting molecule may replace them, or cause other changes to its structure, which may work as well or better, for their descendants. This makes it possible for these complex molecules to automatically try something new, when necessary.


Molecular Intelligence

Molecular intelligence (a living thing, life) is emergent from naturally occurring machine-like molecules which together build and maintain cells like we together build and maintain cities. This form of intelligence is sustained by a “replication cycle” that keeps it going through time. Biologically, our thought cycles exist as a brain wave/cycle rhythm but (where physics willing) the system would still work as well by replicating itself (and stored memories) on a regular cycle, as does molecular intelligence. If our brain worked this way then it would replicate/replace itself upon every new thought we have, could this way sustain itself nearly forever. Without cellular intelligence (discussed in next section) to add moment to moment awareness molecular intelligence is at the mercy of the environment, has no way to efficiently forage for food, but they still soon enough can control the planet’s surface/atmospheric chemistry.

Chromosomal subsystems may be separately modeled. The flowchart becomes:

[ ]

Since cells of multicellular organisms can reconfigure even eliminate parts of their genome in order to “differentiate” into many cell types only our germ cells (which produce egg/sperm) would be fully representative of the memory contents of a molecular intelligence system. With all of the memory cycles before the one that made us is included, our molecular intelligence is currently estimated to be over 3.4 billion years old.

REQUIREMENT #1 of 4 - SOMETHING TO CONTROL

In some bacteria and later in time plants, molecular intelligence systems could likely control the Reverse Krebs Cycle (also known as the Reverse TriCarboxylic Acid Cycle (TCA cycle), Reverse Szent-Györgyi–Krebs Cycle or Reverse/Reductive Citric Acid Cycle). This cycle is the center of cellular metabolism, consuming carbon dioxide while providing energy and molecular intermediates that are used to build amino acids and other vital biomolecules needed to sustain its growth.


A dozen or so catalytic molecules form an assembly line that makes an increasing complex molecule from the molecule it started with. Upon completion of the cycle the molecule breaks in half resulting in an additional molecule required for biosynthesis, while the other half is what it started with, which can then go through the cycle all over again. At any stage through the assembly cycle one of the various molecules may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby biosynthesis reaction. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle can be catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once a common feature of planetary chemistry.2 3 Other clay/minerals are useful for the self-assembly of protocells.4

Animals cannot produce their own food and must instead consume plants and their liberated oxygen to run the cycle in the opposite direction to gain food and energy by disassembling what was previously assembled. There is here a balance between the producers (plants) and consumers (animals) which together maintain a relatively constant oxygen level in the atmosphere.

Additional molecular systems which exploit these metabolic cycles could emerge in environments where the cycle already exists as an uncontrolled reaction. If true then we can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that metabolically produces all that is needed to produce a living genome from scratch, instead of a nonliving/nonfunctional genome first needing to establish this metabolic cycle. Where the energy to power the cycle is from sunlight, the system would have already been light sensitive, the first step toward a more complex sense of vision.

Self-assembly and disassembly of cellular organelles is also easily controlled by molecular intelligence. For example, before division of complex cells the nuclear membrane must automatically self-disassemble to allow access to the chromosomes so they can be pulled by spindle fibers to opposite sides. After division of the chromosomes, internal environmental conditions change causing a nuclear membrane to automatically reassemble around each of the two sets so there are then two nuclei inside the cell. With there then being essentially two cells inside one, the outer cell membrane has two nuclei to self-assemble around which causes them to separate so each can go their separate ways.

Coacervates can resemble living cells, and can appear intelligent, but they only demonstrate uncontrolled (non-intelligent) propulsion. They are not even protointelligence (where it is then at least almost intelligent). When molecularly controlled by a “cell” these forces can power spinning flagella motors and other forms of locomotion, but coacervates meet the first requirement only. We can say that coacervates are a twitching body with no brain/intelligence to control it.

Microscopic coacervates5 can be made by adding red-cabbage pH indicator solution with egg yolk that provides membrane forming phospholipid molecules that form vesicles around other components of yolk. Indicator solution is made by slowly adding fresh leaves from a grocery store red-cabbage to around 1/3 pan (around twice the volume of whole head before pulling each leave) of boiling water that should just cover after leaves soften down and lose coloration. Use large basket strainer to remove liquid (can follow with finer mesh as from plastic fabric or stainless steel coffee maker basket), refrigerate. Remaining solids will eventually settle to bottom. For more pure supernatant you can later pour clear liquid into another container, or centrifuge.

REQUIREMENT #2 of 4 – SENSORY ADDRESSED MEMORY

In living things molecular intelligence cycles through time by continual replication of genetic Addressable Memory (chromosomes) where output actions are stored as coded genes (addressed by regulatory elements) that catalyze production of many kinds of proteins that control and maintain the cell. This memory core is always made of RNA or DNA (threadlike crystal) that can be extracted then sequenced.

In a biological memory system data elements include genes that are addressed by one or more species of sensor molecules, which the gene is sensitive to. What is sensed by sensors addresses corresponding data elements that store appropriate action to be taken in response. The Data at that address is coded on the gene that gets turned into a protein molecule able to perform some Action somewhere in the cell. The Addressing turns a gene (or any data location) on or off (or analog value of throttle).

Molecular streams and conveyors of different kinds inside the cell help transport sensor and data molecules to their proper destination. In 3D systems made of matter, many Data locations can be performing Data Actions and all at the same time yet there is plenty of space for Addressing and Data flow to the rest of the circuit.

Duplication of existing memory is how a new memory location is often added to a DNA based RAM system. Single gene duplication is not the only way to increase information in some cases (not normally humans) it is also possible to duplicate a whole chromosome or all of them in the cell one or more times (polyploidy). Duplication of one gene (data element) adds a single functional new Data location to memory, but there can be more than one gene in each duplication event. In all cases there is a more reliable way for memory to increase in size, than random single base insertions and other additions that would just keep scrambling the information already there.

When studying duplication events it becomes important to understand how genes moved to a new location in a chromosome (or to another). Where after replication the strand unwound to occupy the same chromosome territory6 it would have been duplicated to an adjacent strand that ends up in a different place after the chromosome supercoils just before separation to one of two sides of cell. The chromosome later unwinds then starts protein production again. It here important to have a 3D understanding of what the chromosome territories look like when genes are in full production inside the nucleus where there are molecular streams forming genetic circuits, which places genes that otherwise appear to be far apart in close proximity to each other. One or more genes can also be pinched out of a territory, or have other secondary function (such as recall of past experience somehow useful for producing a good-guess) even though it is not used as a protein production gene anymore. Where duplication included a change in gene coding, what produced the change becomes important. We cannot assume they are all random copy errors, where there may be a mechanism that works with experience stored in nearly all of its active and inactive genes it has in memory.

One way of specifically adding a new memory at a given address is homing endonuclease genes (HEGs) that home in on a particular portion of the DNA, inactivate a gene and insert a copy of itself in the deactivated gene. This homing/addressing occurs in the sperm cells, is passed on to successive generations.

Molecularly Addressed regulation sites turn genes on when they are needed, then metabolic pathway molecular feedback turns off before they start overproducing. Replicating additional genes would help it build up levels of mRNA (for manufacture of their respective protein product) faster, but not necessarily change the amount present in the cell because of production rate of each gene being controlled to only produce what is needed. There are then more than enough viable copies to replace ones that may go bad. Not producing anything useful could make it prone to being chemically switched off or eliminated by the epigenetic success gauging part of the mechanism not finding that useful to it anymore.

Chromosomes arrange into a network of independently addressable areas of molecular flow inside themselves called chromosome territories. There is here an organization present that allows each compartment to specialize in a certain gene driven function, a localized form of addressing where there are routes to travel to reach any given address.

REQUIREMENT #3 of 4 - CONFIDENCE TO GAUGE FAILURE AND SUCCESS

In molecular intelligence the confidence levels are gauged as in cybernetics, the interdisciplinary study of the structure of regulatory systems, which includes molecular systems that are required for basic growth and division of cells where most rudimentary confidence levels are as in homeostasis.

Where confidence in conditions being suitable for replication are great enough another replication cycle can be initiated. Or where a dry spell threatens survival, some cells can take evasive action by becoming a spore (seed) with hard watertight shell around the most vital molecular intelligence (only) part of the system. The next level cellular intelligence that once controlled flagella and other motor systems ceases to exist, until conditions improve and its cellular intelligence can again emerge from its molecular intelligence, to once more become a swimming/migrating cell.

REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS

Complex forms of molecular intelligence have sensory receptors on their surface membrane for different morphogenetic proteins (substance that evokes differentiation). Interaction of the protein with the receptor initiates a cascade of events that eventually turns on some genes and turns off others, aiding differentiation of the cell into brain, muscle and other unique cells. Successful actions to take in response to environmental conditions are recalled from its RNA/DNA memory. New memories can be formed as in the classic example of the origin of nylonase7 whereby a successful response to environmental chemistry conditions is the result of a good guess that leads to a new action to be taken.

At the molecular intelligence level, good guesses are taken using mechanisms such as crossover exchange, chromosome fusion/fission, duplications, deletions and transpositions (jumping genes) whereby a coded region of DNA data physically moves to another location to effectively change its address location. Information shared by conjugation may possibly include good guesses which are incorporated into its genome. Somatic hypermutation occurs when immune cells are fighting a losing battle with germs. The cell then responds by searching for a solution to the problem by rapidly taking good guesses. This produces new defensive molecules which become attached to their outside, to help grab onto an invader so it can be destroyed.

Although a random guess can at times be better than no guess at all, uncontrolled random change (random mutation) in DNA coding is normally damaging. These are caused by (among other things) x-rays and gamma rays, UV light, smoke and chemical agents. Molecular intelligence systems normally use error correction mechanisms to prevent “random chance” memory changes from occurring. To qualify as a random guess the molecular intelligence system must itself produce them. An exception is where random change/mutation is the only available guess mechanism, which may have been all that existed at the dawn of life, to produce the very first living/intelligent things.

Without some form of good-guess genetic recombination the learning rate of the system would be very low. Offspring would normally be clones of their parents. Therefore a part of the cell cycle often has crossover exchange where entire regions of chromosomes are safely swapped, to produce a new individual response to the environment that should work as well or better. This is a good guess because the molecular intelligence is starting with what it has already learned then tries something new based upon that coded knowledge. This is not randomly mixing coding regions in an uncontrolled genetic scrambling which can easily be fatal.

Regardless of population size a molecular intelligence “gene pool” still relies on single individuals to come up with unique solutions to problems such as digesting nylon, antibiotic resistance and differentiation into new cell morphologies. A gene pool is the combined memory of a "collective intelligence" or more specifically "molecular collective intelligence". By using conjugation to share information, a colony of bacteria (or other cells) can be considered to be a single multicellular organism.


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

   
  18634 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (622) < ... 430 431 432 433 434 [435] 436 437 438 439 440 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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