news aggregator

Post by Learned Hand
I think that's what they call a "typical turnabout accusation," with a side of straw man dipped in the oil of red herring and set alight with the flame of persecution.

Post by k.e..
Quote (NoName @ Mar. 27 2014,16:26)Exactly like his 'theory' that fails to explain or even to address how theories are generated by acts of intelligence.

So the question of the day is "Is Gary too stupid to see this, or too blinded by his prejudices or simply performing 'sit down effluent comedy?"
He's performing Identity Politics à la Autism.

Post by N.Wells
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 26 2014,21:55) Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 26 2014,21:09)We aren't arguing over whether it works in your model, or whether Heiserman's definitions work for creating AI algorithms.
No we are not arguing that because David Heiserman's pertained to the underlying process that produces REAL intelligence, not ARTIFICIAL Intelligence.

Stop moving the goalposts, please.
Non-responsive, again.

You said, "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 agreed, saying "we aren't arguing over whether it works in your model, or whether Heiserman's definitions work for creating AI algorithms."  

You responded, "No we are not arguing that because David Heiserman's pertained to the underlying process that produces REAL intelligence, not ARTIFICIAL Intelligence.  Stop moving the goalposts, please."

I'm not shifting goalposts there: I'm agreeing with you.  We aren't arguing those matters, so your harping on my agreeing with you constitutes a rather looney shifting of goalposts on your part relative to our principal issues over your larger claims about the origin of intelligence, supposed "molecular intelligence", and so on

Heiserman viewed his robot AI solely as artificial intelligence.  He referred to it as evolutionary because it was a bottom-up style of learning about the environment by exploring it, and starting with simple behaviors that become more complex, rather than a top-down approach to AI.  As far as I know, he didn't claim to have shown how animal evolution worked or evolved (although it is reasonable to assume that it developed from simple to complex).   You are once again asserting without demonstration that his type of AI is exactly the same as all real biological intelligence, but you need to demonstrate that organisms work the way you are claiming.  More importantly, you need to document the existence of molecular intelligence, to show that your bug has any relevance to real animals and the origins of intelligence, and so forth.

Post by NoName
Exactly like his 'theory' that fails to explain or even to address how theories are generated by acts of intelligence.

So the question of the day is "Is Gary too stupid to see this, or too blinded by his prejudices or simply performing 'sit down effluent comedy?"

Post by k.e..
Noname said Quote Arguably, your central error here, as in your "theory" is your refusal to deal with goals.  Without the concept of 'goal' in your "models", you cannot account for why things behave nor can you account for any aspect of how they behave.

Precisely.
Ironically Gary's claim is that goal posts have been moved.
Why? IDists can't tolerate a natural world without their Overlord in Heaven. If intelligence arose by Evolution which CAN be computer modeled by GAs (and Intelligence  itself by Neural Networks) where does that leave their Overlord in Heaven? Well it leaves Her back in church as a belief system not the cause of everything. In his own little mind his goals are the same old ID tropes. God in Heaven or the Intelligent Designer, take your pick, made the world and Evolution is wrong.

In ENV, Jay Richards opines that "host Neil deGrasse Tyson and the Cosmos producers have enshrouded this basic science with the same materialist narrative we've come to expect. Pre-modern peoples universally see false patterns and portents in the heavens, and invariably see the irregular specter of comets as portents of doom. We get the stereotypical contrast between a "prescientific world ruled by fear" - signaled by a cartoon drawing of a malevolent figure wearing a bishop's miter - and the emergence of modern science, which finally delivered us from such obscurantism."

"This way of framing the history of science, however, requires a great deal of distortion and misrepresentation, especially when it comes to the figure of Isaac Newton. With Newton, the Cosmos writers encountered a dilemma: Either ignore his frankly religious and theistic view of reality, or misrepresent and compartmentalize it. They chose the latter course.

More...

ScienceDaily reports "New findings show that much of the mineral from which bone is made consists of 'goo' trapped between tiny crystals, allowing movement between them. It is this flexibility that stops bones from shattering."

"Latest research shows that the chemical citrate - a by-product of natural cell metabolism - is mixed with water to create a viscous fluid that is trapped between the nano-scale crystals that form our bones. This fluid allows enough movement, or 'slip', between these crystals so that bones are flexible, and don't shatter under pressure. It is the inbuilt shock absorber in bone that, until now, was unknown."

More (hard to believe this wasn't designed)...

Here is the review of the first episode of Cosmos by Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute. The next two episodes have not been much better.

"If there was any doubt that the rebooted Cosmos series...would be politically charged and have a materialistic ideological message, consider what viewers saw in its first 60 seconds. The initial opening featured President Obama, with the Presidential Seal in the background, giving a statement endorsing the new series praising "the spirit of discovery that Carl Sagan captured in the original Cosmos." That's not necessarily bad, except for what happened next. Immediately following President Obama's endorsement, the show replayed Carl Sagan's famous materialistic credo from the opening of the original Cosmos series, stating: "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." Does it violate the separation of church and state for the President of the United States to be portrayed seemingly officially endorsing Sagan's materialistic philosophy? Is this what President Obama intended when he promised in his first inaugural address to "restore science to its rightful place..."

More...

I bought and read "The Explanation for Everything" by Lauren Grodstein a few months ago. I hoped it would be a balanced approach to the debate. I was sorely disappointed.

Now, Kelley J. Unger of Discovery Institute has read the book, and provides a great review: "I've just read a new fiction book that has won praise from critics, Lauren Grodstein's The Explanation for Everything. In the marketing materials provided by Algonquin Books, the author is lauded for not taking sides in the evolution debate. She says herself that she wants to "figure out why people believe what they believe." But as one reads the book it's evident that she is indeed taking sides, doesn't fully develop why her characters believe what they believe, and certainly hasn't fully investigated the theory of intelligent design."

More...

NCSE is pleased to announce the next of a new series of on-line workshops aimed at broadening and deepening the networks that make our work possible. The next workshop focuses on building coalitions to support science education, especially evolution and climate education, which include religious leaders and members of religious communities.

 

 

Louisiana's Senate Bill 70 (PDF). which if enacted would repeal the state's Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act, was rejected on a 5-32 vote by the senate on March 24, 2014, according to the New Orleans Times-Picayune (March 24, 2014). 

In this post in Uncommon Descent I (Eric Anderson) want to consider a fundamental aspect of intelligent design theory: the concept of "information'.

This is centrally relevant to the intelligent design concept of "complex specified information". Attempts have been made by ID critics to derail ID by critiquing each of these three words: complexity, specification and information. Indeed, it is not uncommon to see long, drawn-out, battles over these terms in an attempt to avoid getting to the central issue of whether design can be detected.

More...

In ENV, Casey Luskin writes that..."Jerry Coyne is playing more games, constantly pretending that we have "admitted" intelligent design is religious when we criticize Ball State University (BSU) for being "anti-religious." In his post, Coyne was responding to a letter I published in the Muncie Star Press explaining the anti-religious nature of the book What's Your Dangerous Idea?."

Much more...

Listen Now. On this episode of ID the Future, hear more from physics professor Dr. David Snoke. Dr. Snoke gives a brief review of Stephen Meyer's Darwin's Doubt, offers advice to students who are open to intelligent design theory...

I've just read a new fiction book that has won praise from critics, Lauren Grodstein's The Explanation for Everything. Kelley J. Unger

Actually, he doesn't -- but saying he does is about as accurate as saying, as Coyne writes in a post today, that "Casey Luskin admits that Intelligent Design is religious." Casey Luskin http://www.discovery.org/p/188

Allowing the triumph of bullies to stand unchallenged is an encouragement to bullying -- a theme in international news today, of course. David Klinghoffer http://www.discovery.org/p/209

The Galápagos finches are often touted as a great example of an adaptive radiation, showing how new species can arise through evolutionary processes. Casey Luskin http://www.discovery.org/p/188

"Science is made by people with interests, intentions and ambitions; and it's funded by governments and companies with agendas." Evolution News & Views

Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
There is an overwhelming record of people not being able to engage the topic with civility, even if you simply look at what happened here. There are many fora available, we don't need to become yet another smoking ruin in terms of discussion.