news aggregator
The Michael Medved Show Weekly Science & Culture Update: Featuring Steve Meyer and John Lennox
Click here to listen. On this episode of ID the Future, Stephen Meyer and Oxford professor John Lennox discuss human exceptionalism and the deeper significance of the Gosnell verdict on the Michael Medved Show's Science and Culture Update. Each...
Categories: Anti-Science News
Term Limits: Eugenie C. Scott and the Retirement of "Darwinism"
Consider this sample of publications that have appeared since Eugenie Scott put her warning label on the term "Darwinism."
Mike Keas
Categories: Anti-Science News
Chronicle of Higher Ed on Nagel: Yeah, We Knew It All Along
It really is surprising how quickly Thomas Nagel's critique of Darwinian evolution seems to be achieving the distinction of this kind of retrospective appraisal.
David Klinghoffer
http://www.discovery.org/p/209
Categories: Anti-Science News
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by k.e..
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 18 2013,12:03) Quote (Nomad @ May 18 2013,03:01)Gary.. I'm confused.. you say:
Quote Anthropomorphic generalizations are not needed
And then in the description for your first requirement, all you do is talk about how humans act. You even feel the need to start talking about religion. There is nothing in that "requirement" that isn't anthropomorphic.
The first requirement is baloney anyway. "Something to control"? Really? I guess neural nets that do nothing but analyze data and come to conclusions can never be declared intelligent then. Woops, there goes Watson. You referred approvingly to it before, but apparently you didn't attempt to find your four requirements in it.
This has been touched on by others. Concepts like neural nets and machine intelligence really aren't my area, I'm not a programmer at all, beyond messing with basic years ago, but it seems you've skipped out on a great deal of stuff. You don't seem to be defining intelligence at all. Let's apply your four requirements to my camera, or more specifically only the autofocus system on my camera.
#1 something to control.
Yep, the autofocus motor on the lens.
#2 sensory addressed memory
Yep. The autofocus sensor feeds data into memory inside the camera.
#3 confidence to gauge failure or success
Yep. The AF sensor tells the camera how well focused the scene is, providing a sense of better or worse that it uses to converge on the best possible setting.
#4 ability to take a guess
Yep. It doesn't necessarily know how far it has to adjust the focus, so it takes a guess and evaluates the results.
Well alrighty then. My camera is intelligent.
I dunno, Gary. It kind of sounds like you've so loosely defined intelligence that many things that wouldn't normally be considered intelligent qualify. Preprogrammed behaviors intended to achieve simple tasks qualify as intelligent now. I suspect this is why you're having such a hard time understand when people tell you that your code is not a neural net, because your code fulfills your notion of requirements of intelligence you've concluded that it must be intelligent and is therefore a neural net. But it doesn't work like that. Or else my camera has a neural net AF system.
It's relatively common knowledge that a camera focus system uses a circuit called a "servo"
The rest of your hand-waving mess of scientifically useless generalizations are equally ridiculous.
GiGo a servo is NOT a circuit you don't have clue.
Common knowledge?
On this forum it is common knowledge that all your claims are just blatherings from a deranged mind.
Hand waving?
You would know.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 18 2013,12:03) Quote (Nomad @ May 18 2013,03:01)Gary.. I'm confused.. you say:
Quote Anthropomorphic generalizations are not needed
And then in the description for your first requirement, all you do is talk about how humans act. You even feel the need to start talking about religion. There is nothing in that "requirement" that isn't anthropomorphic.
The first requirement is baloney anyway. "Something to control"? Really? I guess neural nets that do nothing but analyze data and come to conclusions can never be declared intelligent then. Woops, there goes Watson. You referred approvingly to it before, but apparently you didn't attempt to find your four requirements in it.
This has been touched on by others. Concepts like neural nets and machine intelligence really aren't my area, I'm not a programmer at all, beyond messing with basic years ago, but it seems you've skipped out on a great deal of stuff. You don't seem to be defining intelligence at all. Let's apply your four requirements to my camera, or more specifically only the autofocus system on my camera.
#1 something to control.
Yep, the autofocus motor on the lens.
#2 sensory addressed memory
Yep. The autofocus sensor feeds data into memory inside the camera.
#3 confidence to gauge failure or success
Yep. The AF sensor tells the camera how well focused the scene is, providing a sense of better or worse that it uses to converge on the best possible setting.
#4 ability to take a guess
Yep. It doesn't necessarily know how far it has to adjust the focus, so it takes a guess and evaluates the results.
Well alrighty then. My camera is intelligent.
I dunno, Gary. It kind of sounds like you've so loosely defined intelligence that many things that wouldn't normally be considered intelligent qualify. Preprogrammed behaviors intended to achieve simple tasks qualify as intelligent now. I suspect this is why you're having such a hard time understand when people tell you that your code is not a neural net, because your code fulfills your notion of requirements of intelligence you've concluded that it must be intelligent and is therefore a neural net. But it doesn't work like that. Or else my camera has a neural net AF system.
It's relatively common knowledge that a camera focus system uses a circuit called a "servo"
The rest of your hand-waving mess of scientifically useless generalizations are equally ridiculous.
GiGo a servo is NOT a circuit you don't have clue.
Common knowledge?
On this forum it is common knowledge that all your claims are just blatherings from a deranged mind.
Hand waving?
You would know.
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by k.e..
Quote (Henry J @ May 18 2013,08:37) Quote (k.e.. @ May 17 2013,23:08)I wonder if Joe would do any better than AFDave on imaginary numbers?
That's a complex subject.
yeah he couldn't conjugate them
Quote (Henry J @ May 18 2013,08:37) Quote (k.e.. @ May 17 2013,23:08)I wonder if Joe would do any better than AFDave on imaginary numbers?
That's a complex subject.
yeah he couldn't conjugate them
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by timothya
KF included this in one of his comments at UD:
Quote FSCO/I is a good example, such as is manifest in this post.
I couldn't agree more.
KF included this in one of his comments at UD:
Quote FSCO/I is a good example, such as is manifest in this post.
I couldn't agree more.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Nomad @ May 18 2013,03:01)Gary.. I'm confused.. you say:
Quote Anthropomorphic generalizations are not needed
And then in the description for your first requirement, all you do is talk about how humans act. You even feel the need to start talking about religion. There is nothing in that "requirement" that isn't anthropomorphic.
The first requirement is baloney anyway. "Something to control"? Really? I guess neural nets that do nothing but analyze data and come to conclusions can never be declared intelligent then. Woops, there goes Watson. You referred approvingly to it before, but apparently you didn't attempt to find your four requirements in it.
This has been touched on by others. Concepts like neural nets and machine intelligence really aren't my area, I'm not a programmer at all, beyond messing with basic years ago, but it seems you've skipped out on a great deal of stuff. You don't seem to be defining intelligence at all. Let's apply your four requirements to my camera, or more specifically only the autofocus system on my camera.
#1 something to control.
Yep, the autofocus motor on the lens.
#2 sensory addressed memory
Yep. The autofocus sensor feeds data into memory inside the camera.
#3 confidence to gauge failure or success
Yep. The AF sensor tells the camera how well focused the scene is, providing a sense of better or worse that it uses to converge on the best possible setting.
#4 ability to take a guess
Yep. It doesn't necessarily know how far it has to adjust the focus, so it takes a guess and evaluates the results.
Well alrighty then. My camera is intelligent.
I dunno, Gary. It kind of sounds like you've so loosely defined intelligence that many things that wouldn't normally be considered intelligent qualify. Preprogrammed behaviors intended to achieve simple tasks qualify as intelligent now. I suspect this is why you're having such a hard time understand when people tell you that your code is not a neural net, because your code fulfills your notion of requirements of intelligence you've concluded that it must be intelligent and is therefore a neural net. But it doesn't work like that. Or else my camera has a neural net AF system.
It's relatively common knowledge that a camera focus system uses a circuit called a "servo"
The rest of your hand-waving mess of scientifically useless generalizations are equally ridiculous.
Quote (Nomad @ May 18 2013,03:01)Gary.. I'm confused.. you say:
Quote Anthropomorphic generalizations are not needed
And then in the description for your first requirement, all you do is talk about how humans act. You even feel the need to start talking about religion. There is nothing in that "requirement" that isn't anthropomorphic.
The first requirement is baloney anyway. "Something to control"? Really? I guess neural nets that do nothing but analyze data and come to conclusions can never be declared intelligent then. Woops, there goes Watson. You referred approvingly to it before, but apparently you didn't attempt to find your four requirements in it.
This has been touched on by others. Concepts like neural nets and machine intelligence really aren't my area, I'm not a programmer at all, beyond messing with basic years ago, but it seems you've skipped out on a great deal of stuff. You don't seem to be defining intelligence at all. Let's apply your four requirements to my camera, or more specifically only the autofocus system on my camera.
#1 something to control.
Yep, the autofocus motor on the lens.
#2 sensory addressed memory
Yep. The autofocus sensor feeds data into memory inside the camera.
#3 confidence to gauge failure or success
Yep. The AF sensor tells the camera how well focused the scene is, providing a sense of better or worse that it uses to converge on the best possible setting.
#4 ability to take a guess
Yep. It doesn't necessarily know how far it has to adjust the focus, so it takes a guess and evaluates the results.
Well alrighty then. My camera is intelligent.
I dunno, Gary. It kind of sounds like you've so loosely defined intelligence that many things that wouldn't normally be considered intelligent qualify. Preprogrammed behaviors intended to achieve simple tasks qualify as intelligent now. I suspect this is why you're having such a hard time understand when people tell you that your code is not a neural net, because your code fulfills your notion of requirements of intelligence you've concluded that it must be intelligent and is therefore a neural net. But it doesn't work like that. Or else my camera has a neural net AF system.
It's relatively common knowledge that a camera focus system uses a circuit called a "servo"
The rest of your hand-waving mess of scientifically useless generalizations are equally ridiculous.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Nomad
Gary.. I'm confused.. you say:
Quote Anthropomorphic generalizations are not needed
And then in the description for your first requirement, all you do is talk about how humans act. You even feel the need to start talking about religion. There is nothing in that "requirement" that isn't anthropomorphic.
The first requirement is baloney anyway. "Something to control"? Really? I guess neural nets that do nothing but analyze data and come to conclusions can never be declared intelligent then. Woops, there goes Watson. You referred approvingly to it before, but apparently you didn't attempt to find your four requirements in it.
This has been touched on by others. Concepts like neural nets and machine intelligence really aren't my area, I'm not a programmer at all, beyond messing with basic years ago, but it seems you've skipped out on a great deal of stuff. You don't seem to be defining intelligence at all. Let's apply your four requirements to my camera, or more specifically only the autofocus system on my camera.
#1 something to control.
Yep, the autofocus motor on the lens.
#2 sensory addressed memory
Yep. The autofocus sensor feeds data into memory inside the camera.
#3 confidence to gauge failure or success
Yep. The AF sensor tells the camera how well focused the scene is, providing a sense of better or worse that it uses to converge on the best possible setting.
#4 ability to take a guess
Yep. It doesn't necessarily know how far it has to adjust the focus, so it takes a guess and evaluates the results.
Well alrighty then. My camera is intelligent.
I dunno, Gary. It kind of sounds like you've so loosely defined intelligence that many things that wouldn't normally be considered intelligent qualify. Preprogrammed behaviors intended to achieve simple tasks qualify as intelligent now. I suspect this is why you're having such a hard time understand when people tell you that your code is not a neural net, because your code fulfills your notion of requirements of intelligence you've concluded that it must be intelligent and is therefore a neural net. But it doesn't work like that. Or else my camera has a neural net AF system.
Gary.. I'm confused.. you say:
Quote Anthropomorphic generalizations are not needed
And then in the description for your first requirement, all you do is talk about how humans act. You even feel the need to start talking about religion. There is nothing in that "requirement" that isn't anthropomorphic.
The first requirement is baloney anyway. "Something to control"? Really? I guess neural nets that do nothing but analyze data and come to conclusions can never be declared intelligent then. Woops, there goes Watson. You referred approvingly to it before, but apparently you didn't attempt to find your four requirements in it.
This has been touched on by others. Concepts like neural nets and machine intelligence really aren't my area, I'm not a programmer at all, beyond messing with basic years ago, but it seems you've skipped out on a great deal of stuff. You don't seem to be defining intelligence at all. Let's apply your four requirements to my camera, or more specifically only the autofocus system on my camera.
#1 something to control.
Yep, the autofocus motor on the lens.
#2 sensory addressed memory
Yep. The autofocus sensor feeds data into memory inside the camera.
#3 confidence to gauge failure or success
Yep. The AF sensor tells the camera how well focused the scene is, providing a sense of better or worse that it uses to converge on the best possible setting.
#4 ability to take a guess
Yep. It doesn't necessarily know how far it has to adjust the focus, so it takes a guess and evaluates the results.
Well alrighty then. My camera is intelligent.
I dunno, Gary. It kind of sounds like you've so loosely defined intelligence that many things that wouldn't normally be considered intelligent qualify. Preprogrammed behaviors intended to achieve simple tasks qualify as intelligent now. I suspect this is why you're having such a hard time understand when people tell you that your code is not a neural net, because your code fulfills your notion of requirements of intelligence you've concluded that it must be intelligent and is therefore a neural net. But it doesn't work like that. Or else my camera has a neural net AF system.
Categories: AE Public BB
The Bathroom Wall
Post by Quack
Indeed, thanks for reminding me, I'll look into it.
Indeed, thanks for reminding me, I'll look into it.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Quack
I'd rather see you tone down your anti-science a lot!
I'd rather see you tone down your anti-science a lot!
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Richardthughes
LOL@mullings bellyaching on UD because he can't do the math like Lizzie!
LOL@mullings bellyaching on UD because he can't do the math like Lizzie!
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by Henry J
Quote (k.e.. @ May 17 2013,23:08)I wonder if Joe would do any better than AFDave on imaginary numbers?
That's a complex subject.
Quote (k.e.. @ May 17 2013,23:08)I wonder if Joe would do any better than AFDave on imaginary numbers?
That's a complex subject.
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by Henry J
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by k.e..
I wonder if Joe would do any better than AFDave on imaginary numbers?
I wonder if Joe would do any better than AFDave on imaginary numbers?
Categories: AE Public BB
Quantifying the consensus on climate
A new study of the scientific literature confirms that there is a robust consensus that humans are causing global warming.
Categories: Pro-Science News
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer: The Mystery of the Origin of Genetic Information
Click here to listen. On this episode of ID the Future, hear the second part of Casey Luskin's interview with Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, author of the forthcoming book Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the...
Categories: Anti-Science News
Animating Bacterial DNA Replication
This is the kind of thing that, in my opinion, simply screams out "design!"
Jonathan M.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org
Categories: Anti-Science News
ATP Synthase, an Energy-Generating Rotary Motor Engine
Discovery Institute recently released a stunning animation of the mechanics of ATP synthase.
Jonathan M.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org
Categories: Anti-Science News
A New Darwinian Hero: The Bladderwort
Has a diminutive water-dwelling carnivorous plant singlehandedly revived the concept of "junk DNA"?
Evolution News & Views
Categories: Anti-Science News
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Occam's Aftershave
LOL! Gordo is now strutting and crowing like a cock-o-the-walk because the IDiots identified the source of Febble's "CSI challenge" picture. They did it by using Google reverse-image search.
Not a single one of the IDiots actually calculated any value for CSI, which was the only reason for the exercise. Not a single one of them even tried. But they're beating their collective chests now over their "great victory"
LOL! Gordo is now strutting and crowing like a cock-o-the-walk because the IDiots identified the source of Febble's "CSI challenge" picture. They did it by using Google reverse-image search.
Not a single one of the IDiots actually calculated any value for CSI, which was the only reason for the exercise. Not a single one of them even tried. But they're beating their collective chests now over their "great victory"
Categories: AE Public BB
