http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi Antievolution.org is the critic's resource on antievolution. The public bulletin board is a lightly moderated place for general discussions, using a set of rules first implemented in 1992 for the Fidonet "Evolution Echo".

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. ]]> http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=7420;st=4890#entry221622

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 ]]> http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6647;st=6360#entry221621 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. ]]> http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=7305;st=8820#entry221620

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. ]]> http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=7420;st=4890#entry221619 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. ]]> http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=7420;st=4890#entry221618 Indeed, thanks for reminding me, I'll look into it. ]]> http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=1272;st=18810#entry221617 I'd rather see you tone down your anti-science a lot! ]]> http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=7420;st=4890#entry221616 LOL@mullings bellyaching on UD because he can't do the math like Lizzie!   ]]> http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=7305;st=8820#entry221615

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. ]]> http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6647;st=6360#entry221614 There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't. ]]> http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6647;st=6360#entry221613 I wonder if Joe would do any better than AFDave on imaginary numbers? ]]> http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6647;st=6360#entry221612