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

Posted: Sep. 12 2015,08:07

Quote (paragwinn @ Sep. 12 2015,06:32)

Edgar 'I DEMAND AN EXPERIMENT' Postrado vs Gary 'I DEMAND A BETTER MODEL OF SCIENTIFIC VALUE' Gaulin

You nailed it, and the irony involved is world-class.

Gary shows how "tard" got into "petard":

Quote

[From Gary, to Edgar] You need to prove that you can demonstrate something of scientific value, to scientists, or else you are just another who should not be representing ANY scientific theory especially a "theory of intelligent design".

Come on, Gary, prove that that your own words don't apply to you. In case introductions are needed: Gary, petard; petard, Gary.

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

Posted: Sep. 12 2015,09:20

Quote (paragwinn @ Sep. 12 2015,07:32)

Well, the gauntlets have been thrown between the fringiest members of the Intelligent Design community.

Edgar 'I DEMAND AN EXPERIMENT' Postrado vs Gary 'I DEMAND A BETTER MODEL OF SCIENTIFIC VALUE' Gaulin

Who will communicate their ideas least successfully?
Who will feel the most persecuted?
Who will achieve ultimate disrespect and notoriety as THE TOP CRANK?

It's a race to the bottom!

But as we all know, and as Gary is so very persistent in demonstrating, there is no bottom! It's stupid all the way down, forever.

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Sep. 12 2015,11:27

Of course there's a bottom. There's gotta be a turtle down there somewhere. Or China (or somewhere in the Indian Ocean if the digging is straight down)

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Sep. 12 2015,12:04

Perhaps Gary has demonstrated that stupidity is an emergent phenomenon that has emerged right about at the level of Gary, due to achieving fractal wrongness.

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

Posted: Sep. 13 2015,11:55

Hey Gary, have you figured out what your "theory" specifies as the muscle control systems Stephen Hawking used to come up with his theories? How much does his muscular atrophy impact his intelligence? Is the relationship between muscle control systems and intelligence quantifiable? If not, why not? If it is, what are the units, how are they measured? Are the specific muscle control systems used by any particular act of 'intelligence' directly related to the specific kinds of 'intelligent' acts or is any old sort of muscular control system usage sufficient?

And so on, as we listen to the chorus of crickets, occasionally interrupted by the b***s**t-frogs starving in the midst of plenty.

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Sep. 13 2015,13:09

Quote (NoName @ Sep. 13 2015,11:55)

Hey Gary, have you figured out what your "theory" specifies as the muscle control systems Stephen Hawking used to come up with his theories?

Yes.

Quote (NoName @ Sep. 13 2015,11:55)

How much does his muscular atrophy impact his intelligence?

Very much. Which is why he's lucky that only a portion of one intelligence level's motor system out of three was impaired. Losing all of any would be fatal, in which case he would not be able to write any more theories.

Quote (NoName @ Sep. 13 2015,11:55)

Is the relationship between muscle control systems and intelligence quantifiable?

All motor neurons send a signal to a motor muscle that in turn has a sensory feedback neuron back to the brain. Cells use signaling molecules in two way metabolic networks that control its many motor protein controlled functions. At the genetic level there are mobile elements that are able to (readdress) motor themselves from place to place in the genome. Without molecular motor systems the products of gene expression would build up in one place instead of being neatly delivered to where it is needed in the cell. Computer models provide the variables needed to objectively quantify everything.

Quote (NoName @ Sep. 13 2015,11:55)

If not, why not? If it is, what are the units, how are they measured?

Success rate and confidence levels are measured over time, and are shown using line chart like this:

Quote (NoName @ Sep. 13 2015,11:55)

Are the specific muscle control systems used by any particular act of 'intelligence' directly related to the specific kinds of 'intelligent' acts or is any old sort of muscular control system usage sufficient?

I have no idea what you are asking. I think that is because what you said makes no scientific sense, to begin with.

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

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

Posted: Sep. 13 2015,13:12

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 13 2015,14:09)

Quote (NoName @ Sep. 13 2015,11:55)

Hey Gary, have you figured out what your "theory" specifies as the muscle control systems Stephen Hawking used to come up with his theories?

Yes.

Quote (NoName @ Sep. 13 2015,11:55)

How much does his muscular atrophy impact his intelligence?

Very much. Which is why he's lucky that only a portion of one intelligence level's motor system out of three was impaired. Losing all of any would be fatal, in which case he would not be able to write any more theories.

Quote (NoName @ Sep. 13 2015,11:55)

Is the relationship between muscle control systems and intelligence quantifiable?

All motor neurons send a signal to a motor muscle that in turn has a sensory feedback neuron back to the brain. Cells use signaling molecules in two way metabolic networks that control its many motor protein controlled functions. At the genetic level there are mobile elements that are able to (readdress) motor themselves from place to place in the genome. Without molecular motor systems the products of gene expression would build up in one place instead of being neatly delivered to where it is needed in the cell. Computer models provide the variables needed to objectively quantify everything.

Quote (NoName @ Sep. 13 2015,11:55)

If not, why not? If it is, what are the units, how are they measured?

Success rate and confidence levels are measured over time, and are shown using line chart like this:

Quote (NoName @ Sep. 13 2015,11:55)

Are the specific muscle control systems used by any particular act of 'intelligence' directly related to the specific kinds of 'intelligent' acts or is any old sort of muscular control system usage sufficient?

I have no idea what you are asking. I think that is because what you said makes no scientific sense, to begin with.

No, what you're saying makes no sense.

Specifically, you assert that for any act to count as 'intelligent' it must inherently include a loop to<>from a motor control circuit.
This is clearly false, for no motor control circuit is involved in the "level of intelligence" used by Stephen Hawking to develop any of his theories.
He has motor control circuits in service of life, not in service of intelligence.
You do not insist that life is a pre-requisite to intelligence.
You do, however, insist that motor control is.

What motor control system is inherent to Hawking's theorizing?
Unlike you he doesn't move his lips when he thinks, so, no motor control involved in his theorizing as such.

Damn, you're stupid.

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Sep. 13 2015,13:26

Quote (NoName @ Sep. 13 2015,13:12)

Specifically, you assert that for any act to count as 'intelligent' it must inherently include a loop to<>from a motor control circuit.

The theory says quote:

Quote

A behavior from any system qualifies as intelligent behavior by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] something to control (body or modeling platform) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen), [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) 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 mechanism for a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”.

Without motor systems to control humans would not be able to write anything, not exist. Even after death the "something to control (body or modeling platform)" is still there.

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

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

Posted: Sep. 13 2015,13:57

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 13 2015,14:26)

Quote (NoName @ Sep. 13 2015,13:12)

Specifically, you assert that for any act to count as 'intelligent' it must inherently include a loop to<>from a motor control circuit.

The theory says quote:

Quote

A behavior from any system qualifies as intelligent behavior by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] something to control (body or modeling platform) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen), [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) 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 mechanism for a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”.

Without motor systems to control humans would not be able to write anything, not exist. Even after death the "something to control (body or modeling platform)" is still there.

No one is arguing that motor control is not necessary to life.
No one is arguing that motor control in some form is not required to verbalize or externalize the results of intelligence.
But the marker is not the thing.
Intelligence is not necessarily a behavior, that is, is not a thing that requires a motor control circuit.
Expression is a behavior, but that is post hoc to the creation of what is expressed.
No motor control is inherent to or required for the *formulation* of a theory. Only the making evident of the existence of the prior effort in coming up with the theory.
You're a worse reductionist behaviorist than Skinner ever was, but then you're quite stupid.
You conflate things that are different. You fail to distinguish. You generalize, you sweep difficulties under the rug and then proudly announce you've discovered a clean space.
You're disgusting in your stupidity, your vapid cluelessness.

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Sep. 13 2015,14:07

Quote (NoName @ Sep. 13 2015,13:57)

Intelligence is not necessarily a behavior, that is, is not a thing that requires a motor control circuit.

The motors are under the control of the intelligence, not the other way around as you are now suggesting.

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

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

Posted: Sep. 13 2015,14:14

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 13 2015,15:07)

Quote (NoName @ Sep. 13 2015,13:57)

Intelligence is not necessarily a behavior, that is, is not a thing that requires a motor control circuit.

The motors are under the control of the intelligence, not the other way around as you are now suggesting.

No, your diagram clearly shows the motor control circuit as an inherent part of the system that makes up 'intelligence'.
For there to be 'intelligence', in your "theory", there has to be memory, motor control, a "guess" element, etc.
The motor control process is inherent to 'intelligence' as you diagram it, not a separate thing 'controlled by' intelligence.
In fact, in your diagram as well as your "theory", there is no mechanism by which a separate, unintelligent motor control system could be controlled by or influenced by an 'intelligent cause'.
One of many flaws in your steaming heap of verbiage.

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

Posted: Sep. 13 2015,14:16

Exactly as is the case with recognition of a melody (or the composition of one) in a different key at a different tempo on a different instrument requires no 'motor control system', even though one might be involved in signaling that such recognition has occurred.
Yet another 'feature of the universe' all but universally considered to be best explained by an 'intelligent cause' and yet inexplicable on the basis of your output.

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Sep. 13 2015,14:49

Our internal world model has a us in it that gets motored around too, which could still plan out places to go and know where it has been even where 100% paralyzed as in trapped in a motionless body while fully aware of what is happening. Where that all at once happened to all humans we be food that quickly gets eaten alive by one thing or another. Human intelligence would cease to exist.

Without real muscles to plan the control of there is no need for a motor control system, especially one like ours that developed an internal world in which to ahead of time try out various actions to find the one(s) with the best chance of success. This navigation system can still keep on working even after catastrophic muscle loss but the human population cannot exist as a motionless blobs that cannot even reproduce anymore.

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

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

Posted: Sep. 13 2015,14:57

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 13 2015,15:49)

Our internal world model has a us in it that gets motored around too, which could still plan out places to go and know where it has been even where 100% paralyzed as in trapped in a motionless body while fully aware of what is happening. Where that all at once happened to all humans we be food that quickly gets eaten alive by one thing or another. Human intelligence would cease to exist.

Without real muscles to plan the control of there is no need for a motor control system, especially one like ours that developed an internal world in which to ahead of time try out various actions to find the one(s) with the best chance of success. This navigation system can still keep on working even after catastrophic muscle loss but the human population cannot exist as a motionless blobs that cannot even reproduce anymore.

You assert the existence of things not yet demonstrated.
Homunculus theories of mind or intelligence are not rare in Cognitive Science, but they are far from respectable.
As you would know if you knew anything of the field you shoplift in service of your own delusions.

You then speak as if you were only concerned with 'human intelligence' but up to now you have been emphatic that you are covering 'intelligence' as such.
Indeed, you have insisted, at length, that every element of your diagram must be present or there is no 'intelligence'.
Are you now waffling on that point?
If so, say so.

Oh, and how very interesting to here you now raising the notion of 'plan', which is something I and others have long been pointing out that does not exist, and indeed cannot exist as part of 'intelligence' on the basis of your "theory".
Are you now beginning to see what we have all been telling you for 8+ years?
Somehow I doubt it.

Your diagram is false, filled with error and thus inapplicable to intelligence.
Your "theory" cannot account for error, for learning, for planning, for intelligent acts prior to physical acts and not dependent upon them.
As we've been telling you for 8+ years.

Epic fail, Gary, same as it's always been.

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Sep. 13 2015,16:03

Quote (NoName @ Sep. 13 2015,14:57)

Oh, and how very interesting to here you now raising the notion of 'plan', which is something I and others have long been pointing out that does not exist, and indeed cannot exist as part of 'intelligence' on the basis of your "theory".

The theory now has a critter that's born with the common sense to learn how to get out of the way of an approaching shock zone by scooting around to the backside then waiting for the food to be in the clear, without any of that "coded in" the behavior it is the result of the wavelike interactions that depend on what is being mapped into the network. The ability to see itself soon getting a shock comes from periodically addressing network locations one or more time frames ahead of current time. Always thinking ahead is what makes some of the avoid locations blink on and off while the program is running. You will not find a more biologically accurate model showing the basics of what neuroscientists have been discovering, which really came to life by adding to the ID Lab critter.

Code

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

Jim_Wynne

Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Sep. 13 2015,16:29

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 13 2015,16:03)

You will not find a more biologically accurate model showing the basics of what neuroscientists have been discovering, which really came to life by adding to the ID Lab critter.

I have no idea how a person who is as ignorant of the literature and the basics of science--any science--as you are could make such a statement.

Please share with us the models you've reviewed and the journals where we can find the underlying research papers.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Sep. 13 2015,17:48

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Sep. 13 2015,16:29)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 13 2015,16:03)

You will not find a more biologically accurate model showing the basics of what neuroscientists have been discovering, which really came to life by adding to the ID Lab critter.

I have no idea how a person who is as ignorant of the literature and the basics of science--any science--as you are could make such a statement.

Please share with us the models you've reviewed and the journals where we can find the underlying research papers.

The vital papers are included in the Notes folder. The url of others that you will need are listed in comments of the source code.

Most of the neuroscience was earlier discussed in this thread. I have hundreds of other papers I saved in my browser but that would be going overboard and could take some time to list. It's basically the best of the recent Nobel Prize winners and Andre Fenton & Eduard Kelemen who wrote Dynamic Grouping of Hippocampal Neural Activity During Cognitive Control of Two Spatial Frames that provided the most clues about how the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex area of the brain works.

Without adding anything that needed it I got the same signal pair concordance ratios when working properly. While experimenting with it the ratio going way off happened while visibly not working right. The program now starts up showing that on the screen. I added the feature to make it easier to show how and why that varies, to help compare what happens in the model to what is explained in all literature that pertains to it. I let Andre know of new developments to the software. So far has not responded back to my request to let me know where I'm way off track by my having missed something I should have known about. I cannot speak for them and have no idea what their exact opinion is (I never asked for it) but at least I'm not in a vacuum where the greatest scientists in the world know nothing of me or have none that know what I'm up to quickly tell me to stop misrepresenting their work, where they felt it did. Feedback I got from Edvard Moser is that my navigational network (internal world model) work is good enough for the audience it's for.

If you can propose another reason for the ratios and know how it's wired in then let me know. Otherwise the model I have does fine achieving them along with incredibly complex behaviors for something that simple to model. So try to beat that. I want you 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.

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Sep. 13 2015,19:43

It is 7:57 EST and I just updated the .zip file so that it includes the latest features. I also just updated the download site that includes latest theory of operation.

Make sure you have the right one by downloading again. I noticed that the last update was from some time ago. This was a good time to get ready for it no longer being a preliminary version. What I have right now is good enough for Planet Source Code, which means it's ahead of time gone over by real well and am confident I will not get into trouble from any of the scientists concerned by submitting this for publication there. While coding I'm constantly thinking about getting variable names as close as possible to what is being modeled, even though setting out to model "Grid Cells" ends up a "Grid Cell Attractor Network" that models so many other cells it should mention the others or none. But words that can be removed without changing what it is and variables that needed more precise names so that someone like Andre or Edvard know what they represent in their neuroscience papers. I'm often searching their papers for the right variable name to call something. The latest update of the software will also make sure you have all of that as close as possible to perfection as I can get it.

--------------
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

Posted: Sep. 13 2015,22:36

Quote

Without real muscles to plan the control of there is no need for a motor control system, especially one like ours that developed an internal world in which to ahead of time try out various actions to find the one(s) with the best chance of success. This navigation system can still keep on working even after catastrophic muscle loss but the human population cannot exist as a motionless blobs that cannot even reproduce anymore.

More thought-free assertions complete with poor use of language. You want intelligence to be present at the level of cells. Plants and fungi have no "real muscles" (nor any other kind). Nor for that matter do unicellular organisms, although they have other ways of moving. Nonetheless, you just said "without real muscles" there's no need for a motor control system, which is part and parcel of what you claim is necessary for intelligence. So you are contradicting yourself.

You have not yet provided a valid operational definition for intelligence. Whatever the units in your model, you haven't related them to real life, and you have not explained how to measure the intelligence that you suppose to be present in things like mushrooms, oak trees, amoebas, cyanobacteria, and DNA.

You also still haven't adequately explained how a phenomenon that you claim is self-similar at all levels can also be emergent, how something that is emergent can have been designed, and how your ideas qualify as a theory, among many other things.

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Sep. 14 2015,01:28

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 13 2015,22:36)

You have not yet provided a valid operational definition for intelligence. Whatever the units in your model, you haven't related them to real life, and you have not explained how to measure the intelligence that you suppose to be present in things like mushrooms, oak trees, amoebas, cyanobacteria, and DNA.

I noticed the grammar needing fixing. Will work on it later.

As far as an "operational definition" for intelligence I already gave you a whole "THEORY OF OPERATION"? I know of no other way than go into at least that many pages on how intelligence works.

Where the ID movement as a whole has gone in that regards was just mentioned by me to Edgar:

http://www.talkrational.org/showthr....2560488

You and others demand so much it would take 1000 well motivated scientists working full time just to properly keep up but as you can see they're/we're all coming along just fine. Be patient.

--------------
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

Posted: Sep. 14 2015,06:50

Quote

As far as an "operational definition" for intelligence I already gave you a whole "THEORY OF OPERATION"?

It's not very readable, but yes, you've provided a theory of operation for your model. That does not mean that you have presented a scientific theory, and although one would expect that an acceptable operational definition for intelligence would be included in a case like this, that doesn't have to be the case, and it isn't so for you. Note that you still cannot tell me how to measure the quantity of what you call intelligence in a mushroom.

Quote

I know of no other way than go into at least that many pages on how intelligence works.

I agree with you completely - "knowing no other way" is exactly your problem. So now learn how to do the basics of what you want to do.

Quote

You and others demand so much it would take 1000 well motivated scientists working full time just to properly keep up but as you can see they're/we're all coming along just fine. Be patient.

No, it's not "coming along just fine." Everything you have is nothing but baseless assertions. We would like some solid connections to reality and some actual supporting evidence. For example, you are still modelling a hippocampus in an insect (and four legs, not that the missing two legs really matter here). Your "requirements for intelligence" still don't work.

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

Posted: Sep. 14 2015,07:06

But he's done a nice job deflecting and distracting from his absurd blunder that places 'motor control' as an integral part to all 'intelligence'.
Kind of rules out 'chemical intelligence', stretches an analogy to the breaking point for 'cellular intelligence', and winds up asserting that Stephen Hawking is not as 'intelligent' as he would be if he had less muscular atrophy.
I'm still waiting to hear what muscle control systems are involved in creating a melody, in recognizing a transposed melody, etc.

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Sep. 14 2015,09:06

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 14 2015,01:48)

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Sep. 13 2015,16:29)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 13 2015,16:03)

You will not find a more biologically accurate model showing the basics of what neuroscientists have been discovering, which really came to life by adding to the ID Lab critter.

I have no idea how a person who is as ignorant of the literature and the basics of science--any science--as you are could make such a statement.

Please share with us the models you've reviewed and the journals where we can find the underlying research papers.

The vital papers are included in the Notes folder. The url of others that you will need are listed in comments of the source code.

Most of the neuroscience was earlier discussed in this thread. I have hundreds of other papers I saved in my browser but that would be going overboard and could take some time to list. It's basically the best of the recent Nobel Prize winners and Andre Fenton & Eduard Kelemen who wrote Dynamic Grouping of Hippocampal Neural Activity During Cognitive Control of Two Spatial Frames that provided the most clues about how the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex area of the brain works.

Without adding anything that needed it I got the same signal pair concordance ratios when working properly. While experimenting with it the ratio going way off happened while visibly not working right. The program now starts up showing that on the screen. I added the feature to make it easier to show how and why that varies, to help compare what happens in the model to what is explained in all literature that pertains to it. I let Andre know of new developments to the software. So far has not responded back to my request to let me know where I'm way off track by my having missed something I should have known about. I cannot speak for them and have no idea what their exact opinion is (I never asked for it) but at least I'm not in a vacuum where the greatest scientists in the world know nothing of me or have none that know what I'm up to quickly tell me to stop misrepresenting their work, where they felt it did. Feedback I got from Edvard Moser is that my navigational network (internal world model) work is good enough for the audience it's for.

If you can propose another reason for the ratios and know how it's wired in then let me know. Otherwise the model I have does fine achieving them along with incredibly complex behaviors for something that simple to model. So try to beat that. I want you to.

GAULIN TARD LINKS TO ANOTHER ABSTRACT. FILE AS NO RESPONSE.

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

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

Posted: Sep. 14 2015,11:23

And he continues to confuse the map with the territory.
It really doesn't matter if his "results" look like what happens in the real world -- not insofar as establishing how the results in the real world were obtained.
Gary doesn't understand this.
That we can use calculus to determine the optimal path for an eagle to capture prey on the ground does not mean that the eagle performs calculus.

Jim_Wynne

Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Sep. 14 2015,14:12

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 13 2015,17:48)

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Sep. 13 2015,16:29)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 13 2015,16:03)

You will not find a more biologically accurate model showing the basics of what neuroscientists have been discovering, which really came to life by adding to the ID Lab critter.

I have no idea how a person who is as ignorant of the literature and the basics of science--any science--as you are could make such a statement.

Please share with us the models you've reviewed and the journals where we can find the underlying research papers.

The vital papers are included in the Notes folder. The url of others that you will need are listed in comments of the source code.

Most of the neuroscience was earlier discussed in this thread. I have hundreds of other papers I saved in my browser but that would be going overboard and could take some time to list. It's basically the best of the recent Nobel Prize winners and Andre Fenton & Eduard Kelemen who wrote Dynamic Grouping of Hippocampal Neural Activity During Cognitive Control of Two Spatial Frames that provided the most clues about how the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex area of the brain works.

Without adding anything that needed it I got the same signal pair concordance ratios when working properly. While experimenting with it the ratio going way off happened while visibly not working right. The program now starts up showing that on the screen. I added the feature to make it easier to show how and why that varies, to help compare what happens in the model to what is explained in all literature that pertains to it. I let Andre know of new developments to the software. So far has not responded back to my request to let me know where I'm way off track by my having missed something I should have known about. I cannot speak for them and have no idea what their exact opinion is (I never asked for it) but at least I'm not in a vacuum where the greatest scientists in the world know nothing of me or have none that know what I'm up to quickly tell me to stop misrepresenting their work, where they felt it did. Feedback I got from Edvard Moser is that my navigational network (internal world model) work is good enough for the audience it's for.

If you can propose another reason for the ratios and know how it's wired in then let me know. Otherwise the model I have does fine achieving them along with incredibly complex behaviors for something that simple to model. So try to beat that. I want you to.

Which models have you reviewed, and where can I find them and the associated research papers? (That was the original question.)

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Sep. 14 2015,17:32

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Sep. 14 2015,14:12)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 13 2015,17:48)

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Sep. 13 2015,16:29)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 13 2015,16:03)

You will not find a more biologically accurate model showing the basics of what neuroscientists have been discovering, which really came to life by adding to the ID Lab critter.

I have no idea how a person who is as ignorant of the literature and the basics of science--any science--as you are could make such a statement.

Please share with us the models you've reviewed and the journals where we can find the underlying research papers.

The vital papers are included in the Notes folder. The url of others that you will need are listed in comments of the source code.

Most of the neuroscience was earlier discussed in this thread. I have hundreds of other papers I saved in my browser but that would be going overboard and could take some time to list. It's basically the best of the recent Nobel Prize winners and Andre Fenton & Eduard Kelemen who wrote Dynamic Grouping of Hippocampal Neural Activity During Cognitive Control of Two Spatial Frames that provided the most clues about how the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex area of the brain works.

Without adding anything that needed it I got the same signal pair concordance ratios when working properly. While experimenting with it the ratio going way off happened while visibly not working right. The program now starts up showing that on the screen. I added the feature to make it easier to show how and why that varies, to help compare what happens in the model to what is explained in all literature that pertains to it. I let Andre know of new developments to the software. So far has not responded back to my request to let me know where I'm way off track by my having missed something I should have known about. I cannot speak for them and have no idea what their exact opinion is (I never asked for it) but at least I'm not in a vacuum where the greatest scientists in the world know nothing of me or have none that know what I'm up to quickly tell me to stop misrepresenting their work, where they felt it did. Feedback I got from Edvard Moser is that my navigational network (internal world model) work is good enough for the audience it's for.

If you can propose another reason for the ratios and know how it's wired in then let me know. Otherwise the model I have does fine achieving them along with incredibly complex behaviors for something that simple to model. So try to beat that. I want you to.

Which models have you reviewed, and where can I find them and the associated research papers? (That was the original question.)

You can start with all the models listed here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....gorithm

I just got home from a long day at work and I'm not in the mood for spending the rest of it looking up all the models I ever studied over the past 40 years of my life just to please a crybaby.

--------------
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

Posted: Sep. 15 2015,05:09

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 15 2015,01:32)

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Sep. 14 2015,14:12)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 13 2015,17:48)

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Sep. 13 2015,16:29)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 13 2015,16:03)

You will not find a more biologically accurate model showing the basics of what neuroscientists have been discovering, which really came to life by adding to the ID Lab critter.

I have no idea how a person who is as ignorant of the literature and the basics of science--any science--as you are could make such a statement.

Please share with us the models you've reviewed and the journals where we can find the underlying research papers.

The vital papers are included in the Notes folder. The url of others that you will need are listed in comments of the source code.

Most of the neuroscience was earlier discussed in this thread. I have hundreds of other papers I saved in my browser but that would be going overboard and could take some time to list. It's basically the best of the recent Nobel Prize winners and Andre Fenton & Eduard Kelemen who wrote Dynamic Grouping of Hippocampal Neural Activity During Cognitive Control of Two Spatial Frames that provided the most clues about how the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex area of the brain works.

Without adding anything that needed it I got the same signal pair concordance ratios when working properly. While experimenting with it the ratio going way off happened while visibly not working right. The program now starts up showing that on the screen. I added the feature to make it easier to show how and why that varies, to help compare what happens in the model to what is explained in all literature that pertains to it. I let Andre know of new developments to the software. So far has not responded back to my request to let me know where I'm way off track by my having missed something I should have known about. I cannot speak for them and have no idea what their exact opinion is (I never asked for it) but at least I'm not in a vacuum where the greatest scientists in the world know nothing of me or have none that know what I'm up to quickly tell me to stop misrepresenting their work, where they felt it did. Feedback I got from Edvard Moser is that my navigational network (internal world model) work is good enough for the audience it's for.

If you can propose another reason for the ratios and know how it's wired in then let me know. Otherwise the model I have does fine achieving them along with incredibly complex behaviors for something that simple to model. So try to beat that. I want you to.

Which models have you reviewed, and where can I find them and the associated research papers? (That was the original question.)

You can start with all the models listed here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......gorithm

I just got home from a long day at work and I'm not in the mood for spending the rest of it looking up all the models I ever studied over the past 40 years of my life just to please a crybaby.

IOW.... FILE AS NO RESPONSE

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

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Sep. 15 2015,06:46

I do not know of anything close to this computer model. I should not be expected to present research papers for others like it. It is from keeping up with what neuroscientists have been discovering.

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

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013