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

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: June 26 2014,17:58

Quote (JohnW @ June 26 2014,18:52)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 26 2014,15:36)

Quote (stevestory @ June 26 2014,10:20)

from Gary's link:

Quote

Quantum physicists tend to consider the findings less significant. After all, the fluid research does not provide direct evidence that pilot waves propel particles at the quantum scale. And a surprising analogy between electrons and oil droplets does not yield new and better calculations. “Personally, I think it has little to do with quantum mechanics,” said Gerard ’t Hooft, a Nobel Prize-winning particle physicist at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. He believes quantum theory is incomplete but dislikes pilot-wave theory.

My argument has always been that QM is too incomplete to form the conclusions I was regularly bashed with. The paragraph you quoted only supports what I said.

Quote

Many working quantum physicists question the value of rebuilding their highly successful Standard Model from scratch. “I think the experiments are very clever and mind-expanding,” said Frank Wilczek, a professor of physics at MIT and a Nobel laureate,.....

Here is the most "mind-expanding" kick in the face of them all:

You don't like it? Go somewhere else! by Richard Feynman, the QED Lecture at University of Auckland

I'm not at all surprised that those with a vested interest in QM don't like it. I expected it.

I'm sure your overturning of quantum mechanics will be every bit as well-supported, coherent, and successful as your overturning of evolutionary biology, Gary.

To say nothing of "as well reasoned and as well supported by evidence."
Gary is hardly a pale shadow of the joke he was back in his glory days.
Still not 'intelligent', on the grounds of his own "theory", but hardly worth poking at any more. He's run out of amusing rejoinders.

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: June 26 2014,17:59

Quote (N.Wells @ June 22 2014,17:16)

Quote (NoName @ June 22 2014,15:59)

But I have to question, if not challenge, your interpretation of this item. I think Gary does mean that sensations as such directly address physical memory and set/retrieve memory values at/from that address.

Yes, I could have misunderstood that. Perhaps Gary can clarify. Either way, however, it needs to rewritten: "sensory addressed memory" is Gary-telegraphic that seems to unpack to "memories addressed by sensory", which is why I'm having trouble with it. So what is it Gary, addresses for memory storage that are dedicated to sensory organs, or what?

Well, now that we're on a new page, we can extend the period during which we track Gary's failure to address this issue.
Along with all the others he's avoiding of course, but this one is particularly current and amusing.

JohnW

Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: June 26 2014,18:01

Quote (NoName @ June 26 2014,15:58)

Gary is hardly a pale shadow of the joke he was back in his glory days.

I disagree. He's been telling exactly the same joke for years. He hasn't changed at all. His audience just stopped laughing.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: June 26 2014,18:08

Quote (JohnW @ June 26 2014,19:01)

Quote (NoName @ June 26 2014,15:58)

Gary is hardly a pale shadow of the joke he was back in his glory days.

I disagree. He's been telling exactly the same joke for years. He hasn't changed at all. His audience just stopped laughing.

Oh,we're still laughing at him, but we're starting to experience repetitive motion syndrome.
I doubt anyone has ever laughed with him.

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: June 26 2014,19:04

Quote

My argument has always been that QM is too incomplete to form the conclusions I was regularly bashed with.

So what QM-based conclusions were you regularly bashed with, and where and when?

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: June 26 2014,19:22

Quote (N.Wells @ June 26 2014,20:04)

Quote

My argument has always been that QM is too incomplete to form the conclusions I was regularly bashed with.

So what QM-based conclusions were you regularly bashed with, and where and when?

Are we even convinced that Gary can spell 'QM'? I know I'm not -- it smacks of copy/paste to me.

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: June 26 2014,20:23

I had a tiring day at work, and having to experience the threads of insult around the internet after having our phone and internet shut-off this week because of the uselessness of pompous "science defenders" in charge of destroying my work and even my life through teaching misinformation in the public schools will only upset me even more.

I will though share an excellent new video from Ray Kurzweil (who is not a political hack, he provides the AI forum I like so much) I found very entertaining and (especially the last question is) useful. Other than needing to add the qualifier "yet" (that where not rushed for time I think he would have included to be precise) he parallels what I said in the theory about consciousness, which is the reason I had to keep that separate from "intelligence":

Quote

Whether or not an entity has consciousness is not a scientific question because there is [yet?] no falsifiable experiment that could be run to test if an entity is conscious. We assume that each other is conscious in the human experience...an AI could claim it is conscious, Eugene Goostman claimed he was conscious, but it wasn't very convincing...our whole moral system is based on consciousness, so you need a leap of faith. My leap of faith is that an entity seems conscious, and seems to be having the subjective experiences it claims to be having, I'll believe its conscious. I'll also make an objective prediction that most people will accept the consciousness of these entities.

Ray Kurzweil on Biologically Inspired Models of Intelligence

The model I use can be connected in series, similar to his hidden Markov model (that works well for a memory system containing sheets of neurons as opposed to more linear memories, as in very simple brains with minimal number of neurons, biogenetics, or digital RAM).

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

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: June 26 2014,22:13

Quote

So what QM-based conclusions were you regularly bashed with, and where and when?

Could he be referring to having been told that neutrinos are massless, but then they weren't?

Or that protons and neutrons were fundamental, but then they weren't?

That the number of known elements was 103 (or 105?), but it periodically increased so now it's 118?

Or that in the late nineties, an early discovery of element 118 got retracted a few months after it was published? (Was that the only time the number of known elements went down? )

Then there's all that dark matter and dark energy stuff.

With all of those problems, no wonder there's a principle of uncertainty!

Henry

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: June 26 2014,22:19

[duplicate deleted]

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: June 26 2014,23:16

Sorry to hear of your difficulties, but you have only yourself to blame for the crappiness of your work. No one is "in charge of destroying your work" (it is failing miserably all on its own, although we are happy to highlight its failings) and no one is trying to destroy your life - we've suggested that you give up on stuff that is never going to work and concentrate on more important aspects of life, and we've suggested that you get help.

So, seeing as you won't go away, what are the QM-based criticisms that you have been regularly bashed with?

The Kurzweil interview is indeed interesting. It is fascinating that you apparently admire him, yet you are ignoring all his important points.

Kurzweil says, "Whether or not an entity has consciousness is not a scientific question because there is no falsifiable experiment that could be run to test if an entity is conscious." Why do you think we have been asking you for logically valid, potentially falsifiable tests for your ideas? - because without them you aren't doing science.

Quote

In the near term, Kurzweil's project at the company is developing artificial intelligence based on biologically inspired models of the neocortex to enhance functions such as search, answering questions, interacting with the user, and language translation. ...... According to Kurzweil, humans will need to build computers that can build abstract consciousness from a more concrete level. Humans will program them to recognize patterns, and then from those patterns they will need to be smart enough to learn to understand more.

First, which of those things requires bodies with muscles and motors and stuff to control (which you say are needed to qualify as intelligence)? (Answer: none of them.) Second, biologically-based models require ground-truthing to see how the models indeed match up with what happens biologically, but you just assume that because your model does something, that's how biology has to work. (Biologically inspired models are not the same as models of biological system, but if you can't be bothered to see if nature works the way you are asserting then you aren't being inspired by biology, but by your personal fantasies of how things might work.

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: June 26 2014,23:29

Quote (Henry J @ June 26 2014,22:13)

Quote

So what QM-based conclusions were you regularly bashed with, and where and when?

Could he be referring to having been told that neutrinos are massless, but then they weren't?

....
....

With all of those problems, no wonder there's a principle of uncertainty!

Henry

To make a long story short the theory is undoubtedly deterministic and has long explained how to use that ability (to relive the same exact lifetime when the program is restarted) to test models that ends up with the Richard Feynman video or other discrediting argument from ignorance about Albert Einstein having been proven wrong about God playing dice with the Universe and all else that goes with it shoved in my face.

I was suspended from Rational Skepticism for saying their tactics amount to bullying, after reaching the braking point at the time of the release of the Shinedown - Bully song, but that reply along with others were deleted. I never want back.

--------------
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: June 26 2014,23:31

Typo:

I was suspended from Rational Skepticism for saying their tactics amount to bullying, after reaching the breaking point at the time of the release of the Shinedown - Bully song, but that reply along with others were deleted. I never went back.

--------------
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: June 27 2014,01:08

And to be more precise:

To make a long story short the theory is undoubtedly deterministic and has long explained how to use that ability (to relive the same exact lifetime when the program is restarted) to test models that ends up with the Richard Feynman video or other discrediting argument from ignorance about Albert Einstein having been proven wrong about God not playing dice with the Universe and all else that goes with it shoved in my face.

And what Albert Einstein argued is that QM theory is the way it is because it's incomplete. The cheerleaders were just making it seem like detecting things QM is unable to explain is a strength instead of weakness, by filling in the gap with an unexplainable cosmic dice roller of their own. It's really only common sense that where there is something that still cannot be explained there is still something that needs to be explained.

--------------
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: June 27 2014,04:50

Did Einstein ever have his internet cut off?

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: June 27 2014,08:16

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 27 2014,02:08)

And to be more precise:

To make a long story short the theory is undoubtedly deterministic

There is considerable doubt as to whether your "theory" is deterministic or not. It certainly is not, and can not be, deterministic if it is based on learning, for learning is not a deterministic process. That is one of its defining characteristics.

Quote

and has long explained how to use that ability (to relive the same exact lifetime when the program is restarted) to test models that ends up with the Richard Feynman video or other discrediting argument from ignorance about Albert Einstein having been proven wrong about God not playing dice with the Universe and all else that goes with it shoved in my face.

This section starts with set of falsehoods and degenerates into typical Gaulinese nonsense quite rapidly.
Your "theory" explains nothing, nothing at all. It rarely rises to the level of description, and where it does it is generally incorrect at multiple levels of detail.
The software is not life nor a model of life -- not least because it entirely ignores thermodynamics, growth, cellular repair and destruction, reproduction, and the environment within which life is inextricably bound.
Using your software to 'prove' or 'demonstrate' a point is precisely the same as using Space Invaders to declare the SETI successful and concluded.

Quote

And what Albert Einstein argued is that QM theory is the way it is because it's incomplete. The cheerleaders were just making it seem like detecting things QM is unable to explain is a strength instead of weakness, by filling in the gap with an unexplainable cosmic dice roller of their own. It's really only common sense that where there is something that still cannot be explained there is still something that needs to be explained.

You are simply not qualified to utter an opinion on what Einstein said, let alone what he meant.
We can stand by our claims that your claims to understanding or using QM in any sense anywhere in your "theory" is ludicrous.
We can say the same about your claims of determinism and your claims that the results of your software are evidential or even have applicability to life or living things.
No one, least of all here, is arguing that there is nothing left to explain nor that until everything is explained there will still be things left to be explained.
What we are arguing is that you don't comprehend the meaning of 'explain'. We are arguing that your assertions to having explained anything are insane and demonstrably false.
You could easily counter this charge -- provide an explanation based solely on your "theory".
You've rejected the only one that was ever offered up -- we explain your behavior by reference to your "theory" which shows conclusively that you are not 'intelligent'.
You have yet to show why that does not follow, where it goes wrong, or why it is not, in fact, an explanation based on your "theory".

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: June 27 2014,08:29

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 26 2014,21:23)

I had a tiring day at work, and having to experience the threads of insult around the internet after having our phone and internet shut-off this week because of the uselessness of pompous "science defenders" in charge of destroying my work and even my life through teaching misinformation in the public schools will only upset me even more.

Oh, boo hoo. We already know it sucks to be you. We, however, know why. You remain confused. No one, except you, is in charge of destroying your work and/or your life.
You have yet to provide evidence of material misinformation taught in the public schools, yet you continue to utter this falsehood despite having been correct on it over and over and over again.
No one can match you in pomposity, except, perhaps GEM of TIKI. But you reach the very pinnacles of pomposity quite often in your excruciatingly bad posts.

Quote

I will though share an excellent new video from Ray Kurzweil (who is not a political hack, he provides the AI forum I like so much)

Non sequitur. Many political hacks provide fora on the net. Many involved in AI are political hacks. Orthogonal groups, or perhaps circles on a Venn diagram with non-trivial overlap.

Quote

I found very entertaining and (especially the last question is) useful. Other than needing to add the qualifier "yet" (that where not rushed for time I think he would have included to be precise) he parallels what I said in the theory about consciousness, which is the reason I had to keep that separate from "intelligence":

No, the reason why is that you comprehend, and probably experience, neither phenomenon. You have no clue what "intelligence" is, no means to identify it, let alone quantify it, let alone explain it, let alone distinguish it from "consciousness". Whether Kurzweil does or not is irrelevant in the extreme. He is likely entirely unaware of you and your ~~work~~effluent, but even if he were, he would not use your material for anything other than kindling or bird-cage liners. Your work is not, in any way, based on his. If it parallels yours in that delusional swamp you pretend is your mind, that is less meaningful than the conjunction of the moon and a bright star.
...

Quote

The model I use can be connected in series, similar to his hidden Markov model (that works well for a memory system containing sheets of neurons as opposed to more linear memories, as in very simple brains with minimal number of neurons, biogenetics, or digital RAM).

Simply false. You do not have a model. You have a rough schema of a flow that is not exhibited in all acts of intelligence nor includes nor provides for emergence of such acts that do not exhibit said flow.
Your "models" are not connectable in series in any sense of the term. Your schema is self-contained, self-referential, and provides no mechanism for connection in series, parallel, or topological knots of any order.
Go ahead, compose a series connection from your "model" and present it.
You won't because you can't, and you 'know' it.

Texas Teach

Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: June 27 2014,09:10

Quote (Woodbine @ June 27 2014,04:50)

Did Einstein ever have his internet cut off?

Right after he and his Marine friend gave that atheist professor what for.

--------------
"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: June 27 2014,17:27

Quote (N.Wells @ June 26 2014,23:16)

The Kurzweil interview is indeed interesting. It is fascinating that you apparently admire him, yet you are ignoring all his important points.

FYI:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....-644107

--------------
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: June 27 2014,18:09

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 27 2014,18:27)

Quote (N.Wells @ June 26 2014,23:16)

The Kurzweil interview is indeed interesting. It is fascinating that you apparently admire him, yet you are ignoring all his important points.

FYI:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....-644107

Nobody seems to be terribly impressed over there.
As per usual, you're standing on the sidelines, pretending to be involved directly in the game. The referees don't even take you seriously enough to throw you off the field. IOW, you're one of the regrettable side-effects, or unintended consequences, of a free society.

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: June 28 2014,00:59

Quote (N.Wells @ June 26 2014,23:16)

Kurzweil says, "Whether or not an entity has consciousness is not a scientific question because there is no falsifiable experiment that could be run to test if an entity is conscious." Why do you think we have been asking you for logically valid, potentially falsifiable tests for your ideas? - because without them you aren't doing science.

This (I just finished wording to go with an earlier reply to the topic) is what I call science:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....-644312

Constantly demanding "potentially falsifiable tests" and other distractions slows down science work that makes the truly awesome possible. What you think of it is irrelevant, anyway. So please excuse my spending my free time on intelligence related theory in a more appropriate forum, for that kind of science work.

--------------
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: June 28 2014,01:38

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 28 2014,06:59)

What you think of it is irrelevant, anyway.

And yet you've spent the last decade seeking 'informal peer review' for your 'theory' from all over the internet. That's been a smashing success, hasn't it?

Quote

So please excuse my spending my free time on intelligence related theory in a more appropriate forum, for that kind of science work.

Indeed.

If you're going to be ignored then you may as well be ignored in the appropriate forum.

didymos

Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink)

Posted: June 28 2014,04:58

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 27 2014,22:59)

This (I just finished wording to go with an earlier reply to the topic) is what I call science:

<snip>

Right. Sub-par technobabble. We already knew that.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: June 28 2014,06:57

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 28 2014,01:59)

Quote (N.Wells @ June 26 2014,23:16)

Kurzweil says, "Whether or not an entity has consciousness is not a scientific question because there is no falsifiable experiment that could be run to test if an entity is conscious." Why do you think we have been asking you for logically valid, potentially falsifiable tests for your ideas? - because without them you aren't doing science.

This (I just finished wording to go with an earlier reply to the topic) is what I call science:

Why should anyone care what you call science? You call your little pdf a "theory", which just goes to show how irrational and irrelevant you are.

Quote

Constantly demanding "potentially falsifiable tests" and other distractions slows down science work that makes the truly awesome possible.

No, that's how science work is done, that's how science works.

Quote

What you think of it is irrelevant, anyway. So please excuse my spending my free time on intelligence related theory in a more appropriate forum, for that kind of science work.

Right back atcha fool. What you think is not only irrelevant, it has been exhaustively shown to be so, not just over the past 370 pages here but over the tens of thousands of posts dissecting it on the net over the pst 6+ years.
In all that time, have you found so much as a single person who accepted your notions? Who found them compelling, useful, fruitful, insightful, or suitable for anything other than mockery?
Not one single person.
No one at all.
Go back to begging on a street corner so you can get the phone turned back on for your family, you pathetic loser.

Cubist

Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: June 28 2014,07:04

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 28 2014,00:59)

Constantly demanding "potentially falsifiable tests" and other distractions slows down science work that makes the truly awesome possible.

[boggle]
Sweet leaping Jesus Haploid Christ on a titanium trampoline.
Here I'd been laboring under the misapprehension that testability is, like, one of the things which is necessary for 'truly awesome' science… or even marginally awesome science… or even, heck, any actual science whatsoever. But thanks to our boy Gaulin, I have seen the light: The quality of testability, far from a prerequisite of science, is, in fact, a distraction from doing science, hence testability is an obstacle that gets in the way of doing science…
YYyyyyyyyeah. Right. You betcha, Gaulin. Sure thing. Uhhhh-huh.

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: June 28 2014,07:25

Having rejected evidence, Gary has little choice but to reject testability.

Not only has he no evidence whatsoever [no Gary, your little computer game doesn't count], there are mountains of evidence against his claims. None of which he will deign to acknowledge, let alone deal with.
So now it's down to which is the better description for Gary's efforts?
Counter-factual pseudo-science
or
A-factual pseudo-science

I think we have to go with the first.

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: June 28 2014,08:21

Quote

science work that makes the truly awesome possible

Only in your fantasies, Gary, but as always, thanks for the laughs.

Quote

Constantly demanding "potentially falsifiable tests" and other distractions slows down science work that makes the truly awesome possible. What you think of it is irrelevant, anyway.

Think about this a moment: demands for legitimate tests are demands to demonstrate that your ideas correspond to reality. Your position is that reality is irrelevant to science!

(Also, you accuse us of being pompous, and then you wrote that????.....)

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: June 28 2014,08:47

Yesterday, you said, "To make a long story short the theory is undoubtedly deterministic and has long explained how to use that ability (to relive the same exact lifetime when the program is restarted)"

Today over on the Kurzweil forum, you are blathering on about Markov models, and how those fit with your ideas.

Since Markovian systems are stochastic, i.e. random/probabilistic, i.e. NOT DETERMINISTIC, would you care to try to reconcile those two views?

Or are you just creating word salad out of words that you think sound impressive?

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: June 28 2014,09:06

From Gary Marcus' review of Kurzweil's book, at The New Yorker, at
http://www.newyorker.com/online....nd.html

Quote

Kurzweil’s critics have not always been kind .... [Doug Hofstadter said] “if you read Ray Kurzweil’s books … what I find is that it’s a very bizarre mixture of ideas that are solid and good with ideas that are crazy. It’s as if you took a lot of very good food and some dog excrement and blended it all up so that you can’t possibly figure out what’s good or bad.”

........... [Kurzweil] offers no references and very little direct evidence.

..........

Even more disappointing is the fact that Kurzweil never bothers to do what any scientist, especially one trained in computer science, would immediately want to do, which is to build a computer model that instantiated his theory, and then compare the predictions of the model with real human behavior. Does the P.R.T.M. predict anything about human behavior that no other theory has predicted before? Does it give novel insight into any long-standing puzzles in human nature? Kurzweil never tries to find out.

Instead, Kurzweil compares his theory with the physical structure of the brain, hurling a huge amount of neuroanatomy at the reader, and asserting, without a lot of reflection, that it all fits his theory. A recent paper (more controversial than Kurzweil may have realized) claims that the brain is neatly organized into a kind of three-dimensional grid system. Kurzweil happily takes this as evidence that he was right all along, but the fact that the brain is organized doesn’t mean it is organized as Kurzweil suggests. We already knew that the brain is structured, but the real question is what all that structure does, in technical terms. How do the neural mechanisms in the brain map onto the brain’s cognitive mechanisms? Without an understanding of that, Kurzweil’s pointers to neuroanatomy serve more as razzle-dazzle than real evidence for his theory.

The deepest problem is that Kurzweil wants badly to provide a theory of the mind and not just the brain. Of course, the mind is a product of the brain, as Kurzweil well knows, but any theory that seriously engages with what the mind is has to reckon with human psychology—with human behavior and the mental operations that underlie it. Here, Kurzweil seems completely out of his depth. ..... Not a single cognitive psychologist or study is referred to, and he scarcely engages the phenomena that make the human mind so distinctive.

.......
At the end Kurzweil leaves us with a theory that is generic. Almost anything any creature does could at some level be seen as hierarchical-pattern recognition; that’s why the idea has been around since the late nineteen-fifties. But simply asserting that the mind is a hierarchical-pattern recognizer by itself tells us too little.........

Kurzweil is so confident in his theory that he insists it simply has to be correct. Early in the book, he claims that “the model I have presented is the only possible model that satisfies all the constraints that the research and our thought experiments have established.” ..................

What Kurzweil doesn’t seem to realize is that a whole slew of machines have been programmed to be hierarchical-pattern recognizers, and none of them works all that well ..............

Ultimately Kurzweil is humbled by a challenge that has beset many a great thinker extending far beyond his field—Kurzweil doesn’t know neuroscience as well as he knows artificial intelligence, and doesn’t understand psychology as well as either.

Unlike Kurzweil, Gary seems to be leaving the "very good food" portion out of his presentation, but otherwise there are some instructive similarities going on.

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: June 28 2014,09:35

Well, aside from the fact that Kurzweil has been an acknowledged success in a couple of areas and has made a ton of money.
Those are two key differences right there.
That people are likely to know Kurzweil's name is another.

jeffox

Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: June 28 2014,11:37

Quote

Seeing how you like to be messenger: Tell your friends at RatSkep and elsewhere that their Quantum Mechanics "nondeterministic" religious arguments against the theory just backfired and they all now look like scientifically dysfunctional fools:

As if you know anything about QM. (snicker) You know nothing about a lot of things, Goo Goo; and the nasty thing about that is that you expound upon many of them as if you do. The trouble with that is when you run into people who actually DO know things about which you don't. BTW, it doesn't make them assholes, it makes you look stupid. Because you are.

Oh, and before you disagree with me, please explain why most forms of iron are black. Modern chemistry and QM do precisely that. Go for it, show us some more of that famous Gaulinfail . . . . .

Whatta hoot!

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