k.e..
Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 27 2014,04:02) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 26 2014,13:07) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 26 2014,01:24) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 25 2014,21:57) | | You would also be providing as much supporting evidence as you can, and you would be suggesting tests for your hypotheses that the hypotheses could potentially either pass or fail (i.e., you would be making potentially falsifiable predictions)............... |
Well, instead of wasting time not explaining how anything works just running in circles to please those who will never have enough evidence anyway I would be examining what happens when 6 bit angular vectors are combined by summing Cartesian X,Y offsets into a center angle, and resulting distance amount (not used for anything but are none the less in the math) from averaging out the directional amount by the number of cell neighbors that are active. I would then have another nice little program with the grid Cell Network model that shows how opposing signal directions cancel out and so forth, in all of the 64 possibilities, while saving a text file that other programs can use to load the precalculated center angles into an array. We can then stare at this, wondering what it all means, while knowing it's just the way opposing forces/waves cancel out and other science basics I don't need to rewrite any books on, just account for in the models, like this:
 |
Wonderful: you understand vector math. However, as NoName indicated, the fact that a problem can be solved by calculus, or trigonometry, or vector math, does not mean that is how the problem has to be solved.
I'm not especially up to date on the science of how organisms navigate, but back when I learned about it, the state of the art consisted of elegant experiments showing what clues animals perceived and how they used them, followed by elegant dissections and anatomical studies showing how the animals perceived those clues. This resulted in showing how various organisms can sense and use the earth's magnetic field, directions of polarization of light even on overcast days, starlight, moonlight, homing in on chemical signals, learned visual reference points, and so forth.
ALL of this work was focussed on demonstrating whether or not organisms could sense particular clues and did utilize them: in other words, the main concern of the work was ground-truthing ideas relative to reality.
As NoName explained so well, you have no interest in this at any scale, from the way you think evolution works through the way you think intelligence works, on down to the way you think neurons and navigation work. You have to get past the idea that what seems intuitively obvious to you A) should be intuitively obvious to everybody else, B) should be accepted by everybody else based on your say-so, and C) has to be the way that things actually work. None of that is necessarily true, and all of it has to be demonstrated before you have anything of interest. Doing the legwork is nobody's responsibility except yours (it might interest someone else enough to do it if they actually thought you had something worthwhile, but your continual mangling of basic facts, your lack of valid definitions, and your incomprehensible English pretty much make it clear that if you have anything of interest it is a case of someone finding a needle in a haystack by sitting on it unwittingly). Until you focus on demonstrating the validity and relevance of your ideas, your work is very nearly valueless* and you have nothing but empty assertions and hollow claims. (*You could have used your program to steer a robot vacuum cleaner, but that's been done already.)
Pretty much everyone has been telling you all this since your arrival on the internet. |
The models do very well, where where it matters, such as PSC and forums that don't care about the ID politics this forum exists to dwell on.
You are describing mostly old-school live animal studies where you see what happens when they are missing this or that part of their anatomy, follow them around to see where they migrate then put some in arenas to see whether they try to fly towards polarized light, etc..
There is now an almost information overload of live animal type studies and theories. The scientific challenge has become computer modeling the underlying process. And in that area the IDLab still works great, to make that simple.
The illustration showing what cancels out while calculating center angles is not something to sit around and talk about it's something that needs to be done in order to understand what happens where that's used in a model. I found that it works, even though the vectors that are no longer sensed are a problem around barriers and other places to avoid contact with. The next logical step is then to simplify some more, not have to find a center angle. In either case though, an unintelligent grid network still adds a remarkable ability to the IDLab critter, that can use either to add to its intelligent behavior. My David Heiserman based operational definitions for intelligence are now a Robotics101 sort of thing, not a controversial concept I am obliged to spend months and years gathering evidence for just to please political activists who want to skip all that science too. |
um yeah ....sez you, and only you.
Your delusion is that you think what you are doing is science.
No scientist would agree, none Gary.
If you think that ANY scientist thinks what do you are doing is science prove it.
You are just a sad attention whore.
--------------
"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
|
