Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002
|
Stuff from the Smithsonian site:
| Quote |
Gary Gaulin • 11 days ago
According to the theory that I have been working on for over 20 years the first multicellular “animal intelligence” developed (currently estimated) a little over 500 million years ago. Earthworms are also considered animals. In comparison to humans the brainpower of the first intelligent animals might not be very impressive, but they still meet all four requirements of the cognitive circuit described by cognitive science (per Arnold Trehub for human intelligence) and robotics (per David Heiserman for machine intelligence). It's the most scientific way I know to operationally define and qualify "intelligence".
A pdf of the entire theory (and brief intro with illustration for the origin of intelligence) is at:
http://theoryofid.blogspot.com.../.....co.....com...
The origin of intelligence is my favorite topic. I would be happy to answer any scientific questions you might have.
|
| Quote |
Wesley Elsberry Gary Gaulin • a day ago
Gary already has 300+ pages of "answering" questions on record, not counting other places he's trotted his screed out. See http://tinyurl.com/p7ye4n8....p7ye4n8
Check it out for how Gary responds to anything other than instant adulation. (The start of that can be seen happening once again here.)
Synopsis: Gary's code doesn't implement any of Arnold Trehub's actual neural models, nor does Gary's code implement anything beyond a simulation premised on David Heiserman's "beta"-class robot, though Gary's text relies on Heiserman's use of "educated guess" ("good guess" in Gaulinese) that Heiserman reserved for his "gamma"-class robots, a long step beyond what Gary so far publicly offers code for. In response to criticism, Gary will, on past form, denigrate any critic's credentials (though Gary has not much himself so far as I know); claim that critics must be dissing the sources Gary cites rather than Gary's bizarre mash-up of them; thoroughly misunderstand and misrepresent sources (including ones he himself cites); bizarrely claim that unless someone can offer something better for establishing the result he wishes his code and text might establish, his work thus is supported; pretend that his code is biologically plausible for things it can't possibly be considered to approach in any biologically plausible manner; and project every fault he has onto his interlocutors.
The origin of intelligence may be Gary's favorite topic, but I think it's far less likely that anyone else is going to have "listening to Gary go on about the origin of intelligence" be one of their favorite things. In order to bypass evolutionary hypotheses, it looks to me that Gary seeks to establish intelligent action at logically prior, lower levels, those of molecules and cells. In my experience, any data that does not accord with this idee fixe' is relentlessly rejected or disputed by Gary. Gary certainly has shown no compunction in dismissing relevant work on the evolution of intelligence.
Do be careful, though; Gary did note that he consulted with a Discovery Institute lawyer prior to engaging the "After the Bar Closes" forum to figure out when to sue someone in online discussion. See http://tinyurl.com/pnjnj5x....pnjnj5x
|
| Quote |
Gary Gaulin Wesley Elsberry • a day ago
Wesley never fails to oversell the drama, that's now at this point in the long discussion:
http://www.antievolution.org/c...
I am on friendly terms with Casey Luskin, which makes some paranoid but our conversation was for advice in regards to theory where when all is going right the science is way more powerful than any court case could ever be. He only had to in his words explain why he agreed that legal means are self-defeating, for me to have a weight lifted from my shoulders by knowing just that. I was then able to stay focused on the computer models and other things that makes the theory happen and went to Panda's Thumb After the Bar Closes forum Wesley nervously rules, which now has 365 pages of science mayhem they have to do something about.
My having to credit Casey for genuine help that didn't need any legal papers filled out makes it so he does not have to worry about being seen as useless to their own theory sort of thing. There being no real conflict between us is a good thing when it's more or less their theory too and better for them to be OK with how things are going, than not. Smithsonian Magazine then has much less to worry about from Casey Luskin, not more.
|
| Quote |
Wesley Elsberry Gary Gaulin • a day ago
Like I said, an abundance of caution is a good thing. Gary has other quite clear statements about his litigation fishing, such as:
| Quote |
I was hoping Wesley would at least attempt to find
something "actionable" (that is not outright criminal like chaining me
inside a basement torture chamber) that was not already tried on me.
[End quote -- http://tinyurl.com/m2wpb6g....m2wpb6g ]
|
You will notice that Gary avoids and evades any discussion of the wide gap between what his code implements, and what he claims it signifies. This is also consistent with his months-long interaction at AtBC.
|
| Quote |
Gary Gaulin Wesley Elsberry • a day ago
Wesley, you can now stop demonstrating your continually dwelling on legal issues and all else besides science. Already did a good job showing what I'm actually up against.
Discussion in your forum perpetually goes in circles back to the same old nonscience.
|
| Quote |
Wesley Elsberry Gary Gaulin • a day ago
Uh, Gary, I actually discussed exactly what your code implements of Trehub (no neural models whatsoever) and Heiserman (stops short of the level of complexity needed for making "educated guesses" in Heiserman's parlance), and you had no answer for that, and apparently wish to tell people falsehoods about my participation here. That's bizarre, given that they can look up the page and see that your characterization is false. By all means, let's discuss what is in Trehub and Heiserman that is inexplicably missing from your code and contradicted in your text. I already made a start on that topic here, contrary to your claim.
So far in response to me Gary has made false statements about his documented talk of desire to bring a lawsuit against someone and also a false assertion that I've only discussed Gary's well-documented litigious statements. That's not a very promising start here on his part, is it?
|
| Quote |
Gary Gaulin Wesley Elsberry • 11 hours ago
I first explain that the David Heiserman (one of three where Beta most simply produces intelligence) only needed a RAM chip for storing its memories in. When computer modeling as in the ID Labs an array is dimensioned for an addressable RAM memory, in their PC. The circuit is most simply shown as:
https://sites.google.com/site/...
Then I explain that Arnold Trehub shows the same systematics for a human brain in an illustration in their book:
https://sites.google.com/site/...
Arnold Trehub, "The Cognitive Brain", MIT Press 1991, Chapter 9, Page 158, Fig 9.3
http://people.umass.edu/trehub...
http://people.umass.edu/trehub...
I then explain the purpose of the model is to keep things Occam's Razor reduced as possible, and just in code dimension an array, not write a whole other program that models neurons that connect together to do the same thing anyway, store memories.
At this point you would figure they already got it. The model keeps things as simple as possible, period. There is no need to add all kinds of other code and all else the forum can think of that soon has me needing to build a well educated robot to get a beer from the fridge for them.
A lively debate to welcome Stephanie Keep as new science editor has just ended at the NCSE website. It sums up a large number of things. It has a little music to help lighten things up, with a quick once through the usual challenges that stopped at the point where dizzying redundancy begins. With all else considered it's hard for her to beat a welcome like this, in a place like that, from everyone:
http://ncse.com/blog/2014/05/n...
I feel good about having attended what became for me like a week long science party, where I only had to bring the Theory of Intelligent Design. The entertainment on its own automatically follows. Its tread grew until thoughts were being scattered by new material forming in between, then became best to not mess it up with clutter and let the readers decide from that.
Stephanie can jump in anywhere, or not. Either way I'm happy with how things went and would rather have the adversaries I did end end up with, than for me to be there by myself not really knowing what to say. As it turned out the zingers that followed the science video on weird stories behind all great theories were then like part of the act to make sure we have the best yet.
The NCSE thread is a good example of what I was describing by saying when all is going right the science itself is way more powerful than legal court actions. What matters is that science experts who know the theory and I are the first in on a novel grid cell model and other ideas for AI that's worth the read, know about. The reviewers at Planet Source Code rated the model all the way to awesomeness. Turning my discussion with Casey into a major issue is another something I get dragged into that can go on and on for weeks, I should not be expected to get ground down by.
|
--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
