Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Mar. 14 2015,12:00

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 14 2015,11:39)

Precise? Gary?

Quote

10. Gary's claim about the content of Avida:

Quote

I modeled the common "ANN" that's also found in Avida and found that such networks are NOT intelligent.

There is no artificial neural network in Avida, thus Gary's claim is FALSE.

Then are you saying that the earlier mentioned link that I found at the Avida-ED website about evolving neural networks is nothing but false advertising?

--------------
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: Mar. 14 2015,14:18

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 14 2015,12:00)

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 14 2015,11:39)

Precise? Gary?

Quote

10. Gary's claim about the content of Avida:

Quote

I modeled the common "ANN" that's also found in Avida and found that such networks are NOT intelligent.

There is no artificial neural network in Avida, thus Gary's claim is FALSE.

Then are you saying that the earlier mentioned link that I found at the Avida-ED website about evolving neural networks is nothing but false advertising?

No, he's not, and only a fool determined to live in self-deception could argue for that position.

That article is not mentioned at the Avida-ED site because of its discussion of evolving neural networks, which are not relevant to Avida. Instead it is mentioned there as background, because it is by Pennock, and because it is relevant to Darwinian mechanisms making novel discoveries and the power of evolutionary computing, and that in turn is what Avida is all about. If you look really closely, you might find some clues about that, for example in the FIRST half of the title of the paper ("Can Darwinian Mechanisms Make Novel Discoveries?") and in the way the paper is mentioned on the website, specifically,

From http://avida-ed.msu.edu/informa...._2.html

Quote

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

• To find out about some of the pedagogical goals of the project and the thinking that shaped the design and development of Avida-ED see:

Robert T. Pennock. "Learning Evolution and the Nature of Science using Evolutionary Computing and Artificial Life" McGill Journal of Education (Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 211-224, 2007)

• Avida-ED is meant to be used not only to help teach about evolution, but also the nature of science. Evolution is one of the best examples for helping students understand how science works.

Robert T. Pennock. "On Teaching Evolution and the Nature of Science" In Cracraft, J. and R. Bybee (eds.). Evolutionary Science and Society: Educating a New Generation. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Colorado Springs, CO. (pp. 1-12, 2005)

• Avida-ED is not a simulation of evolution, but an instance of it. For a philosophical treatment of scientific models and the difference between a simulation and an instance as these concepts relate to evolutionary computation see:

Robert T. Pennock. "Models, Simulations, Instantiations and Evidence: The Case of Digital Evolution." Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 19, No. 1, 2007)

• To learn more about the power of evolutionary computation see:

Robert T. Pennock. "Can Darwinian Mechanisms Make Novel Discoveries?: Learning from discoveries made by evolving neural networks." Foundations of Science (Vol. 5 no. 2, pp. 225-238, 2000)

Nothing about that is false advertising. He isn't making the claims that you say he is. The nicest possible interpretation of your claims here is that you are being an idiot, but there's no particular shortage of less nice interpretations either.

-----
Incidentally, if I were you, I wouldn't want to link to the Avida -ED website because comparison to your dreck makes you look bad in yet another regard that we've brought up in the the past - http://avida-ed.msu.edu/downloa....ad.html (Hint: documented versions, rather than your ahistorical whack-a-mole approach to adding fixes in camouflaged updates.)

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Mar. 14 2015,14:35

Wesley's paper can be scanned through using the Find command for the word "intelligence". What is important to notice is that all of the qualifiers for intelligence also apply to unintelligent systems, including the ability to recall generalized behavior patterns. Reaching a goal is what an unintelligent guided missile does. It does not matter whether the fins are slightly angled and causes spinning, wobbling, or no angle that causes it to go straight to the target it's still an unintelligent guided missile.

The paper should include illustrations showing the features of an unintelligent system, and what needs to be added to generate intelligence like we have that has "confidence" levels we can "feel" and takes "guesses" with a "RAM" wired in a certain way that connects to motors and sensors also wired in a certain way. So Wesley was essentially launching unintelligent rockets into the air while giving their trajectories anthropomorphic qualities like "Drunkards, and Climbers" which might help make them appear to be intelligent but they are still just unintelligent guided missiles.

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

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink)

Posted: Mar. 14 2015,15:06

Why should I wish to take the "Let's Pretend!" path that Gary takes?

About all I can do is note that I, and most reasonable people, would disagree with Gary at quite fundamental levels of the discussion. Evolving programs in the optimal class of movement strategies, gradient ascent, is "unintelligent"? I don't think so.

Here's one of the issues raised:

Quote

From among the movement strategies that were observed in these runs, a selection of evolved programs that approximated a gradient ascent method (the class of Climber movement strategies) that performed well were used to test the generality of the programs. One aspect of intelligent behavior is that such behaviors provide adaptive responses to novel stimuli. For this test, evolved Climber programs were injected into Avida runs with random placement of the resource peak.

Has Gary tested his PSC VB bug by training it in one environment, then checking its performance in a different environment? It certainly isn't clear from anything I've seen Gary say.

Oh, and also that Gary's claim that I didn't support my claims about Avida is still FALSE. Gary is all about dismissing what he apparently doesn't understand.

We probably ought to review the various things that Gary hopes to digress away from.

Quote

6. New claim:

Quote

Or in other words: connecting inputs and outputs of the grid neurons (as in the Grid Network program) causes it to self-oscillate.

Nothing in GridCellNetwork.frm indicates the presence of any neuron model. (There is not even a comment with "neur" in it anywhere.) Oscillation is a common outcome of feedback systems in general, and such behavior says nothing about entailing a neural representation. Gary should indicate what neuron model he is using and in which line numbers there is an implementation. Survey of the code indicates the claim is likely FALSE.

7.A. Gary's claim that he only models what has never been modelled before: FALSE, given his re-implementation of Heiserman robots and even his citation of Heiserman.

7.B. Gary's claim that he only models what has never been modelled before: FALSE, given his stated topic of an attractor network model of grid and place cells and the 2011 review article showing that such models were already in existence back in 2007.

8. Gary's claim of having a valid attractor network model:

Quote

'Grid Cell Attractor Network for place avoidance spatial navigation around Repelling border/boundary cell mapped hazards or barriers

A 2011 review article makes it clear that attractor network models must have particular attributes to be considered valid:

Quote

Finally, it is worth noting that the validity of the attractor models relies on the assumption of specific connectivity between grid cells with similar spatial phase.

Examination of Gary's GridCellNetwork.frm file shows no evidence of any such feature being implemented, and Gary has refused to indicate any line numbers where such a feature might be argued to be implemented, which makes Gary's claim likely to be FALSE.

9. Gary's claim about my claims regarding Avida:

Quote

I know you cannot prove the claims that you and others make in regards to Avida models.

Given that I make and support my claims with respect to Avida in a paper on the topic (a paper which Gary early in the thread claimed to have read), this claim by Gary is documented to be FALSE.

10. Gary's claim about the content of Avida:

Quote

I modeled the common "ANN" that's also found in Avida and found that such networks are NOT intelligent.

There is no artificial neural network in Avida, thus Gary's claim is FALSE.

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

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Mar. 14 2015,15:07

Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 14 2015,14:18)

That article is not mentioned at the Avida-ED site because of its discussion of evolving neural networks, which are not relevant to Avida.

I'm still waiting for someone to back up the "evolving intelligence" claim.

Your insisting that a neural network RAM (necessary for it to have a "brain") is not relevant to any Avida model is only helping to indicate that the "evolving intelligence" claim is totally false.

--------------
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: Mar. 14 2015,15:08

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 14 2015,15:06)

Has Gary tested his PSC VB bug by training it in one environment, then checking its performance in a different environment? It certainly isn't clear from anything I've seen Gary say.

Yes, many hundreds of times.

--------------
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: Mar. 14 2015,15:25

Have you noticed that you are destroying your main argument and twisting yourself in knots for the sake of trying to avoid admitting to a minor error and looking a bit foolish?

Wesley and Pennock are talking about the beginnings of behaviors that look like the result of intelligence or are a form of protointelligence (depending on how one defines intelligence), or are accomplishing results that might otherwise be attributed to intelligence, all without involving neurons. You need this, because you too are claiming all manner of actual intelligence in all manner of situations where neurons are completely absent.

However, your illogical foundation and your distaste for "undirected" evolutionary processes and natural selection causes you to try to dismiss their stuff as unintelligent guided missile behavior and anthropomorphic labels.

This is more than a little ironic given the way you promiscuously label all manner of stuff as intelligent.

You almost catch on to some of our complaints when you note that all your supposed hallmarks of intelligence occur in unintelligent systems ("all of the qualifiers for intelligence also apply to unintelligent systems"), which is what we've been telling you. These are some of several reasons why your criteria for intelligence don't work: by your criteria, algorithmic autofocus systems and Neato vacuum cleaners are intelligent.

(Additionally, although [some of] your criteria, such as motor control and coordination of signal processing and coordinating a response, almost certainly played a role in the evolution of intelligence, you make broad claims about intelligence while using criteria that specifically exclude some of the most archetypal instances of intelligence. In short, your approach is extremely problematic.)

You want Wesley and Pennock to include your talismans of "confidence levels" and motor-sensor circuits and "taking guesses", but their system provides equivalent feedback systems with evaluation of outcomes, which provides a form of direction, all without requiring neurons or intelligence sensu stricto. (More seriously, you are skipping past the fact that their model has generations and reproduction, while yours doesn't.) They can make a much better claim to have investigated potential pathways for emergence of intelligence than you can: their model not only produces actual steps that have plausible real-world implications but also includes reproduction and generations (https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/papers/Pennock_LENSwEvoComp.pdf), while all you have are unsupported assertions and dubious shufflings of labels and concepts. It's not clear that what your model is doing has the slightest relevance to intelligence, to the emergence of intelligence, or to the spread of intelligence across a population.

You have yet to justify insertions of random-walk responses or bacterial tumbles as guesses in any sense that requires intelligence ahead of time rather than an automatic and evolved algorithmic appeal to randomness whose outcome can be evaluated (again non-intelligently) after the fact.

Quote

The paper should include illustrations showing the features of an unintelligent system, and what needs to be added to generate intelligence like we have that has "confidence" levels we can "feel" and takes "guesses" with a "RAM" wired in a certain way that connects to motors and sensors also wired in a certain way.

That would only be appropriate AFTER you have created valid operational definitions and backed up your assertions to the point of them needing to be taken seriously. For now, that's assuming facts not in evidence.

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Mar. 14 2015,15:48

I'm still waiting for someone to back up the "evolving intelligence" claim. And I'm still just getting defamatory excuses for not needing systematic based operational definitions that are relevant to routine biology (i.e. location and function of hedonic system, guess mechanism to take guesses like real living things can, 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.

Texas Teach

Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Mar. 14 2015,16:03

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 14 2015,11:55)

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 14 2015,11:38)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 14 2015,11:18)

Wesley is working hard to avoid having to back up the claim that they made about "evolving intelligence". I wonder why?

And in case the Wikipedia link (that was redirected from Neural Network) didn't already make this obvious: For computer modeling purposes the phrase "Artificial Neural Network" is a more precise way of saying "Neural Network".

I have already supported my claims with respect to the "evolving intelligence" project:

Quote

9. Gary's claim about my claims regarding Avida:

Quote

I know you cannot prove the claims that you and others make in regards to Avida models.

Given that I make and support my claims with respect to Avida in a paper on the topic (a paper which Gary early in the thread claimed to have read), this claim by Gary is documented to be FALSE.

Gary isn't just confused here; he has been given the link to the paper multiple times, which indicates either density on his part or a willingness to lie about me with malice aforethought.

The only thing you have done is help throw insults, in order to avoid having to explain how you qualified and quantified said "intelligence".

And with that, every irony meter in the know universe exploded at the sub-atomic level.

--------------
"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: Mar. 14 2015,16:09

Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 14 2015,16:03)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 14 2015,11:55)

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 14 2015,11:38)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 14 2015,11:18)

Wesley is working hard to avoid having to back up the claim that they made about "evolving intelligence". I wonder why?

And in case the Wikipedia link (that was redirected from Neural Network) didn't already make this obvious: For computer modeling purposes the phrase "Artificial Neural Network" is a more precise way of saying "Neural Network".

I have already supported my claims with respect to the "evolving intelligence" project:

Quote

9. Gary's claim about my claims regarding Avida:

Quote

I know you cannot prove the claims that you and others make in regards to Avida models.

Given that I make and support my claims with respect to Avida in a paper on the topic (a paper which Gary early in the thread claimed to have read), this claim by Gary is documented to be FALSE.

Gary isn't just confused here; he has been given the link to the paper multiple times, which indicates either density on his part or a willingness to lie about me with malice aforethought.

The only thing you have done is help throw insults, in order to avoid having to explain how you qualified and quantified said "intelligence".

And with that, every irony meter in the know universe exploded at the sub-atomic level.

You are a science teacher, and with your knowledge of Avida should easily be able to explain how the "intelligence" (suggested by the phrase "evolving intelligence") 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.

Texas Teach

Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Mar. 14 2015,16:27

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 14 2015,16:09)

Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 14 2015,16:03)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 14 2015,11:55)

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 14 2015,11:38)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 14 2015,11:18)

Wesley is working hard to avoid having to back up the claim that they made about "evolving intelligence". I wonder why?

And in case the Wikipedia link (that was redirected from Neural Network) didn't already make this obvious: For computer modeling purposes the phrase "Artificial Neural Network" is a more precise way of saying "Neural Network".

I have already supported my claims with respect to the "evolving intelligence" project:

Quote

9. Gary's claim about my claims regarding Avida:

Quote

I know you cannot prove the claims that you and others make in regards to Avida models.

Given that I make and support my claims with respect to Avida in a paper on the topic (a paper which Gary early in the thread claimed to have read), this claim by Gary is documented to be FALSE.

Gary isn't just confused here; he has been given the link to the paper multiple times, which indicates either density on his part or a willingness to lie about me with malice aforethought.

The only thing you have done is help throw insults, in order to avoid having to explain how you qualified and quantified said "intelligence".

And with that, every irony meter in the know universe exploded at the sub-atomic level.

You are a science teacher, and with your knowledge of Avida should easily be able to explain how the "intelligence" (suggested by the phrase "evolving intelligence") works.

You are some random guy on the Internet who claims to have out thought millions of scientists. You should be able to use your knowledge of cleaning things with gasoline and trying to convince those with an actual education that you know more than them about everything to explain how you measure "molecular intelligence".

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

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink)

Posted: Mar. 14 2015,17:29

All Gary's complaints about my paper seem to be dismissals of our approach rather than, as he FALSELY claimed, that I did not support the claims I made.

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

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Mar. 14 2015,17:30

The only ones on the internet who have a problem with the models and theory regarding "intelligence" are those who have little or no experience in the fields of cognitive science.

It's no surprise the so-called "science defenders" are quick to make it appear that what the theory explains is contrary to what "millions of scientists" are studying, when in fact that is not the truth (it's what they were misled into believing).

--------------
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: Mar. 14 2015,17:42

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 14 2015,17:29)

All Gary's complaints about my paper seem to be dismissals of our approach rather than, as he FALSELY claimed, that I did not support the claims I made.

In this day and age your approach is scientifically misleading and should never be used in science. Your methodology does not even explain why the IBM Watson system is indeed intelligent, and why other systems are not.

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

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: Mar. 14 2015,17:44

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 14 2015,18:30)

The only ones on the internet who have a problem with the models and theory regarding "intelligence" are those who have little or no experience in the fields of cognitive science.

It's no surprise the so-called "science defenders" are quick to make it appear that what the theory explains is contrary to what "millions of scientists" are studying, when in fact that is not the truth (it's what they were misled into believing).

That's simply not true. We know it and you do too.
You are not acknowledged by a single cognitive science researcher for any insight or understanding of the field, still less that you have made any positive contribution. If you were to have been so acknowledged, you'd be trumpeting the triumph, with references to substantiate it, all across the Internet.
You so seriously misuse basic terms of the field, such as 'learn', as to render your claim laughable on the face of it.
The most, the very most, you can claim is to have stolen credit by reference to works you oh so clearly do not understand.

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: Mar. 14 2015,17:49

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 14 2015,18:42)

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 14 2015,17:29)

All Gary's complaints about my paper seem to be dismissals of our approach rather than, as he FALSELY claimed, that I did not support the claims I made.

In this day and age your approach is scientifically misleading and should never be used in science. Your methodology does not even explain why the IBM Watson system is indeed intelligent, and why other systems are not.

You are not qualified to judge.
You are entirely unable to explain why the IBM Watson system is deemed intelligent, nor why, on the explicit grounds of your own "theory" neither the composition of a melody nor the recognition of a melody in a different key and at a different tempo do not count as intelligent.
You are a pathetic loon, dishonest as the day is long, and ignorant as a stone.

Lethean

Posts: 292
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink)

Posted: Mar. 14 2015,18:32

Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 14 2015,11:41)

Anyone else seen the Lol Creme film "The Lunatic"?

Aloysius' name-accretion fetish reminds me of GG.

Nice, watching it now. YouTube has a low res version.

Thanks for that, I love coming across obscure films.

Quote

"Dee pum pum is worse tyranny than colonialism."

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

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

~Dave Hawkins~

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Mar. 14 2015,21:07

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 15 2015,01:42)

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 14 2015,17:29)

All Gary's complaints about my paper seem to be dismissals of our approach rather than, as he FALSELY claimed, that I did not support the claims I made.

In this day and age your approach is scientifically misleading and should never be used in science. Your methodology does not even explain why the IBM Watson system is indeed intelligent, and why other systems are not.

How many sharks has Gary jumped with that projection?

True non self aware mindlessness. And too stupid to see it.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his ~~clown~~ DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Mar. 14 2015,22:42

Although I have to avoid getting others stuck in the mudfight going on here in this thread, in the real world where the best around exchange ideas needed to stay current in what is known about how "intelligence" works my models and theory are such a scientific noncontroversy I was honorably nominated (by one of the most knowledgeable and respected in the forum) to help moderate the Kurzweil AI forum:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....-668886

As in the topic for an exceptional Lady Gaga performance that seemed too off-topic for the forum, I sometimes know what is needed to lead to entertaining science fun that that time needed information on Ray Kurweil's music related interests to help keep such a thread on-topic. I do not have much free time to moderate, but on occasion I do help in that regard.

Claims of my ideas being rejected hide the fact that experienced scientists in relevant fields find them to be no controversy at all. IBM and other creators of machine intelligence are not at all threatened, modern systems have the expected guess mechanism and other systematics required to qualify as intelligence. The Google brain can now make a "best guess" for selecting videos so where the "intelligence" science is really at all is still actually going very well. That level of help settling the semantic "best" or "good" guess issue I have to welcome the change from science itself that make my theory writing life easier. Small changes added up to what I have been explaining becoming a scientific reality, which could just be by others finding out the same as I did about the features of "intelligence" on their own without me, but either way the models and theory withstood the already decades long test of time and became scientific reality.

It seemed that CNOT would not mind my appreciatively mentioning their nomination in this anti-ID forum where how intelligence works is so poorly understood it (from a moderating perspective) scientifically deserves the torment, from my being here.

--------------
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: Mar. 14 2015,23:14

So not only does Gary believe Judge Jones monitors his work, but now believes that IBM and Google are too.

And the evidence for this delusion? - they've never contacted him and asked him to stop.

Incredible.

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink)

Posted: Mar. 14 2015,23:17

I don't think "torment" is the right word, either. Surely there is some term for a person so unreliable as a source of truth that one shouldn't trust pretty much anything they say?

Quote

Let's review the status of various of Gary's "Let's Pretend!" claims.

1. Heiserman procedures are Hebbian learning: FALSE

2. Heiserman Gamma is like "sleep": FALSE

3. Presence of Trehub neural models in PSC VB code: FALSE

4. Presence of NEURONS like Lehman and Stanley in PSC VB code: FALSE

5. Link between Heiserman Gamma and recent research on place and grid nerve cells: Unsubstantiated, most likely FALSE

6. New claim:

Quote

Or in other words: connecting inputs and outputs of the grid neurons (as in the Grid Network program) causes it to self-oscillate.

Nothing in GridCellNetwork.frm indicates the presence of any neuron model. (There is not even a comment with "neur" in it anywhere.) Oscillation is a common outcome of feedback systems in general, and such behavior says nothing about entailing a neural representation. Gary should indicate what neuron model he is using and in which line numbers there is an implementation. Survey of the code indicates the claim is likely FALSE.

7.A. Gary's claim that he only models what has never been modelled before: FALSE, given his re-implementation of Heiserman robots and even his citation of Heiserman.

7.B. Gary's claim that he only models what has never been modelled before: FALSE, given his stated topic of an attractor network model of grid and place cells and the 2011 review article showing that such models were already in existence back in 2007.

8. Gary's claim of having a valid attractor network model:

Quote

'Grid Cell Attractor Network for place avoidance spatial navigation around Repelling border/boundary cell mapped hazards or barriers

A 2011 review article makes it clear that attractor network models must have particular attributes to be considered valid:

Quote

Finally, it is worth noting that the validity of the attractor models relies on the assumption of specific connectivity between grid cells with similar spatial phase.

Examination of Gary's GridCellNetwork.frm file shows no evidence of any such feature being implemented, and Gary has refused to indicate any line numbers where such a feature might be argued to be implemented, which makes Gary's claim likely to be FALSE.

9. Gary's claim about my claims regarding Avida:

Quote

I know you cannot prove the claims that you and others make in regards to Avida models.

Given that I make and support my claims with respect to Avida in a paper on the topic (a paper which Gary early in the thread claimed to have read), this claim by Gary is documented to be FALSE.

10. Gary's claim about the content of Avida:

Quote

I modeled the common "ANN" that's also found in Avida and found that such networks are NOT intelligent.

There is no artificial neural network in Avida, thus Gary's claim is FALSE.

And it looks like those claims are quite stable in that configuration.

Gary is good at digression, but hasn't bothered to do anything about his clear record here.

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

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Mar. 14 2015,23:18

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 14 2015,17:29)

All Gary's complaints about my paper seem to be dismissals of our approach rather than, as he FALSELY claimed, that I did not support the claims I made.

Simply put: If your approach for qualifying intelligence is inadequate then you did not support the claims that you made, you only believe that you did.

I made no false claims at all. Your carrying on like I did is very uncalled for, and way over the line.

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

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink)

Posted: Mar. 15 2015,00:40

Gary made no false claims? He ought to see his physician about his memory loss.

Quote

Let's review the status of various of Gary's "Let's Pretend!" claims.

1. Heiserman procedures are Hebbian learning: FALSE

2. Heiserman Gamma is like "sleep": FALSE

3. Presence of Trehub neural models in PSC VB code: FALSE

4. Presence of NEURONS like Lehman and Stanley in PSC VB code: FALSE

5. Link between Heiserman Gamma and recent research on place and grid nerve cells: Unsubstantiated, most likely FALSE

6. New claim:

Quote

Or in other words: connecting inputs and outputs of the grid neurons (as in the Grid Network program) causes it to self-oscillate.

Nothing in GridCellNetwork.frm indicates the presence of any neuron model. (There is not even a comment with "neur" in it anywhere.) Oscillation is a common outcome of feedback systems in general, and such behavior says nothing about entailing a neural representation. Gary should indicate what neuron model he is using and in which line numbers there is an implementation. Survey of the code indicates the claim is likely FALSE.

7.A. Gary's claim that he only models what has never been modelled before: FALSE, given his re-implementation of Heiserman robots and even his citation of Heiserman.

7.B. Gary's claim that he only models what has never been modelled before: FALSE, given his stated topic of an attractor network model of grid and place cells and the 2011 review article showing that such models were already in existence back in 2007.

8. Gary's claim of having a valid attractor network model:

Quote

'Grid Cell Attractor Network for place avoidance spatial navigation around Repelling border/boundary cell mapped hazards or barriers

A 2011 review article makes it clear that attractor network models must have particular attributes to be considered valid:

Quote

Finally, it is worth noting that the validity of the attractor models relies on the assumption of specific connectivity between grid cells with similar spatial phase.

Examination of Gary's GridCellNetwork.frm file shows no evidence of any such feature being implemented, and Gary has refused to indicate any line numbers where such a feature might be argued to be implemented, which makes Gary's claim likely to be FALSE.

9. Gary's claim about my claims regarding Avida:

Quote

I know you cannot prove the claims that you and others make in regards to Avida models.

Given that I make and support my claims with respect to Avida in a paper on the topic (a paper which Gary early in the thread claimed to have read), this claim by Gary is documented to be FALSE.

10. Gary's claim about the content of Avida:

Quote

I modeled the common "ANN" that's also found in Avida and found that such networks are NOT intelligent.

There is no artificial neural network in Avida, thus Gary's claim is FALSE.

And it looks like those claims are quite stable in that configuration.

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

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Mar. 15 2015,01:15

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 14 2015,22:42)

Although I have to avoid getting others stuck in the mudfight going on here in this thread, in the real world where the best around exchange ideas needed to stay current in what is known about how "intelligence" works my models and theory are such a scientific noncontroversy I was honorably nominated (by one of the most knowledgeable and respected in the forum) to help moderate the Kurzweil AI forum:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....-668886

One nomination for you along with 24 other people being nominated (basically most of the frequent commenters), with no subsequent discussion of you by anyone. Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but it's possible that you could make a more significant contribution as a moderator than through your not-a-theory.

Quote

Small changes added up to what I have been explaining becoming a scientific reality, which could just be by others finding out the same as I did about the features of "intelligence" on their own without me, but either way the models and theory withstood the already decades long test of time and became scientific reality.

Now that's just delusional.

Quote

It seemed that CNOT would not mind my appreciatively mentioning their nomination in this anti-ID forum where how intelligence works is so poorly understood it (from a moderating perspective) scientifically deserves the torment, from my being here.

The thing that's tormented there is the English language - would you care to try that again, please. Who deserves what torment?

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Mar. 15 2015,01:28

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 15 2015,00:40)

Gary made no false claims? He ought to see his physician about his memory loss.

You are just a baby having a temper tantrum because I will not kiss your shitty ass.

--------------
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: Mar. 15 2015,01:32

Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 14 2015,23:14)

So not only does Gary believe Judge Jones monitors his work, but now believes that IBM and Google are too.

And the evidence for this delusion? - they've never contacted him and asked him to stop.

Incredible.

And one of the ass-kissers is now trying to shove the word "monitors" in my mouth.

This is certainly one of the creepiest and most dishonest forums on the internet.

--------------
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: Mar. 15 2015,05:58

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 15 2015,02:32)

Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 14 2015,23:14)

So not only does Gary believe Judge Jones monitors his work, but now believes that IBM and Google are too.

And the evidence for this delusion? - they've never contacted him and asked him to stop.

Incredible.

And one of the ass-kissers is now trying to shove the word "monitors" in my mouth.

This is certainly one of the creepiest and most dishonest forums on the internet.

All of which originates from you.
Even the most casual onlooker can easily see that you are the one who makes unwarranted accusations and fails, consistently, to back them up with evidence.
Challenging your lies, pointing out that they are lies and why, may look creepy to you but that's because the truth is unfamiliar territory to you. The world of facts, evidence, of science, is entirely distinct from your little make-believe fantasy world of "let's pretend."
Same as it ever was. All you've accomplished in 7+ years is grow 7 years older.

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Mar. 15 2015,08:37

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 15 2015,09:28)

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 15 2015,00:40)

Gary made no false claims? He ought to see his physician about his memory loss.

You are just a baby having a temper tantrum because I will not kiss your shitty ass.

Hahahaha Gary reminds me of a toddler refusing to use a potty.

I wonder if he had any kids.

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

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Mar. 15 2015,08:59

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 15 2015,06:42)

Although I have to avoid getting others stuck in the mudfight going on here in this thread, in the real world where the best around exchange ideas needed to stay current in what is known about how "intelligence" works my models and theory are such a scientific noncontroversy I was honorably nominated (by one of the most knowledgeable and respected in the forum) to help moderate the Kurzweil AI forum:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....-668886

As in the topic for an exceptional Lady Gaga performance that seemed too off-topic for the forum, I sometimes know what is needed to lead to entertaining science fun that that time needed information on Ray Kurweil's music related interests to help keep such a thread on-topic. I do not have much free time to moderate, but on occasion I do help in that regard.

Claims of my ideas being rejected hide the fact that experienced scientists in relevant fields find them to be no controversy at all. IBM and other creators of machine intelligence are not at all threatened, modern systems have the expected guess mechanism and other systematics required to qualify as intelligence. The Google brain can now make a "best guess" for selecting videos so where the "intelligence" science is really at all is still actually going very well. That level of help settling the semantic "best" or "good" guess issue I have to welcome the change from science itself that make my theory writing life easier. Small changes added up to what I have been explaining becoming a scientific reality, which could just be by others finding out the same as I did about the features of "intelligence" on their own without me, but either way the models and theory withstood the already decades long test of time and became scientific reality.

It seemed that CNOT would not mind my appreciatively mentioning their nomination in this anti-ID forum where how intelligence works is so poorly understood it (from a moderating perspective) scientifically deserves the torment, from my being here.

Sheer unadulterated nonsense Gary.

Watson and Google search are not "intelligent" or anywhere near showing signs of understanding, all they are are search engines using Big Data.

If you don't believe that just Google how to fix you're rotten teeth.

Loser.

Although when the only tool you have is Google it might explain why you misunderstand what intelligence is. You are asking the wrong questions.

Hint, to understand science requires an honesty and reasoning ability that you so far have failed to demonstrate.

The answer to why was your own science education such a massive failure was because you were such a failure as a student not because of a failure of science education.

Your continual failure to learn from your very basic errors and mistakes marks you out to be truly beyond help.

Your problem Gary is Pathological not Pedagogical.

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

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink)

Posted: Mar. 15 2015,09:05

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 15 2015,01:28)

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 15 2015,00:40)

Gary made no false claims? He ought to see his physician about his memory loss.

You are just a baby having a temper tantrum because I will not kiss your shitty ass.

Projection is still Gary's best faculty.

Quote

Let's review the status of various of Gary's "Let's Pretend!" claims.

1. Heiserman procedures are Hebbian learning: FALSE

2. Heiserman Gamma is like "sleep": FALSE

3. Presence of Trehub neural models in PSC VB code: FALSE

4. Presence of NEURONS like Lehman and Stanley in PSC VB code: FALSE

5. Link between Heiserman Gamma and recent research on place and grid nerve cells: Unsubstantiated, most likely FALSE

6. New claim:

Quote

Or in other words: connecting inputs and outputs of the grid neurons (as in the Grid Network program) causes it to self-oscillate.

Nothing in GridCellNetwork.frm indicates the presence of any neuron model. (There is not even a comment with "neur" in it anywhere.) Oscillation is a common outcome of feedback systems in general, and such behavior says nothing about entailing a neural representation. Gary should indicate what neuron model he is using and in which line numbers there is an implementation. Survey of the code indicates the claim is likely FALSE.

7.A. Gary's claim that he only models what has never been modelled before: FALSE, given his re-implementation of Heiserman robots and even his citation of Heiserman.

7.B. Gary's claim that he only models what has never been modelled before: FALSE, given his stated topic of an attractor network model of grid and place cells and the 2011 review article showing that such models were already in existence back in 2007.

8. Gary's claim of having a valid attractor network model:

Quote

'Grid Cell Attractor Network for place avoidance spatial navigation around Repelling border/boundary cell mapped hazards or barriers

A 2011 review article makes it clear that attractor network models must have particular attributes to be considered valid:

Quote

Finally, it is worth noting that the validity of the attractor models relies on the assumption of specific connectivity between grid cells with similar spatial phase.

Examination of Gary's GridCellNetwork.frm file shows no evidence of any such feature being implemented, and Gary has refused to indicate any line numbers where such a feature might be argued to be implemented, which makes Gary's claim likely to be FALSE.

9. Gary's claim about my claims regarding Avida:

Quote

I know you cannot prove the claims that you and others make in regards to Avida models.

Given that I make and support my claims with respect to Avida in a paper on the topic (a paper which Gary early in the thread claimed to have read), this claim by Gary is documented to be FALSE.

10. Gary's claim about the content of Avida:

Quote

I modeled the common "ANN" that's also found in Avida and found that such networks are NOT intelligent.

There is no artificial neural network in Avida, thus Gary's claim is FALSE.

And it looks like those claims are quite stable in that configuration.

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

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