AE Public Forum
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".
Updated: 2 days 6 hours ago
Science Break
Post by dvunkannon
http://www.wired.com/wireden....ligence
More neural network goodness to make VJ Torley cringe.
http://www.wired.com/wireden....ligence
More neural network goodness to make VJ Torley cringe.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by OgreMkV
Quote (Amadan @ May 14 2013,13:37) Quote (tsig @ May 14 2013,16:55)Godditit because god is a mosaic.
The duckbill platypus as proof of the trinity. :O
Omigosh! Now I see!!
The platypus:
(1) has a bird-like bill;
(2) can swim underwater for extended periods; and
(3) has an appendage through which it injects a painful venom
or, as you might say:
(1) the Feather
(2) the Sub
(3) the Holey Spear
(edit: l'espirit d'escalier)
Post Of The Weak
Quote (Amadan @ May 14 2013,13:37) Quote (tsig @ May 14 2013,16:55)Godditit because god is a mosaic.
The duckbill platypus as proof of the trinity. :O
Omigosh! Now I see!!
The platypus:
(1) has a bird-like bill;
(2) can swim underwater for extended periods; and
(3) has an appendage through which it injects a painful venom
or, as you might say:
(1) the Feather
(2) the Sub
(3) the Holey Spear
(edit: l'espirit d'escalier)
Post Of The Weak
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Amadan
Quote (tsig @ May 14 2013,16:55)Godditit because god is a mosaic.
The duckbill platypus as proof of the trinity. :O
Omigosh! Now I see!!
The platypus:
(1) has a bird-like bill;
(2) can swim underwater for extended periods; and
(3) is entirely strange
or, as you might say:
(1) the Feather
(2) the Sub
(3) the Wholly Ghost
Quote (tsig @ May 14 2013,16:55)Godditit because god is a mosaic.
The duckbill platypus as proof of the trinity. :O
Omigosh! Now I see!!
The platypus:
(1) has a bird-like bill;
(2) can swim underwater for extended periods; and
(3) is entirely strange
or, as you might say:
(1) the Feather
(2) the Sub
(3) the Wholly Ghost
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Quack
Quote Poor, deranged fool. This thread is probably his only contact with the outside world.
He claims to hold a job, I wonder what his workplace looks like. Any contact with colleagues that might want to discuss the most important scientific theory ever?
One wonders (though not much) what life he has?
Quote Poor, deranged fool. This thread is probably his only contact with the outside world.
He claims to hold a job, I wonder what his workplace looks like. Any contact with colleagues that might want to discuss the most important scientific theory ever?
One wonders (though not much) what life he has?
Categories: AE Public BB
Science Break
Post by Arctodus23
Quote (Quack @ May 10 2013,02:50) Quote (midwifetoad @ May 09 2013,08:38) Quote (Quack @ May 09 2013,07:51)From Science Daily
Quote Remnants of a supernova in the constellation Cassiopeia, about 11,000 light-years away. The stellar explosion took place about 330 years ago.
I have been looking at the quote for a long time. I expect scientific statements to make sense. What is it that I fail to understand?
The first light of the explosion reached us 330 years ago. Journalism strikes again.
That's what I wanted to think but I am the kind of guy that like to have the facts straight and unambiguous.
I'd feel like an idiot if I were to write like that. But he may have had a bad hangover
Id fell like I defec
Quote (Quack @ May 10 2013,02:50) Quote (midwifetoad @ May 09 2013,08:38) Quote (Quack @ May 09 2013,07:51)From Science Daily
Quote Remnants of a supernova in the constellation Cassiopeia, about 11,000 light-years away. The stellar explosion took place about 330 years ago.
I have been looking at the quote for a long time. I expect scientific statements to make sense. What is it that I fail to understand?
The first light of the explosion reached us 330 years ago. Journalism strikes again.
That's what I wanted to think but I am the kind of guy that like to have the facts straight and unambiguous.
I'd feel like an idiot if I were to write like that. But he may have had a bad hangover
Id fell like I defec
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by N.Wells
Oh good grief, he's discovered instinct (innate behavior) vs learned behavior, & has drawn a really bad analogy between analogical biochemistry and digital electronics.
From there, he ignores complex behavior and behavioral cascades, in effect programs a behavioral cascade and thinks of it as learned behavior (somewhat ironically in a modelled arthropod!), and then reasserts his starting assumptions and desired conclusions that molecules are intelligent and that his unique misunderstood strawman version of evolutionary theory is rubbish.
GGIGO. Everything about Gary's reasoning is muddled, and the more you get into it the worse it gets. It's muddles on muddles all the way down. I think it's fractal! :)
Oh good grief, he's discovered instinct (innate behavior) vs learned behavior, & has drawn a really bad analogy between analogical biochemistry and digital electronics.
From there, he ignores complex behavior and behavioral cascades, in effect programs a behavioral cascade and thinks of it as learned behavior (somewhat ironically in a modelled arthropod!), and then reasserts his starting assumptions and desired conclusions that molecules are intelligent and that his unique misunderstood strawman version of evolutionary theory is rubbish.
GGIGO. Everything about Gary's reasoning is muddled, and the more you get into it the worse it gets. It's muddles on muddles all the way down. I think it's fractal! :)
Categories: AE Public BB
Science Break
Post by Quack
Quote (afarensis @ May 10 2013,19:14)So, uh, which way is the specified complexity added?
I couldn't find it, better ask Dembski.
Quote (afarensis @ May 10 2013,19:14)So, uh, which way is the specified complexity added?
I couldn't find it, better ask Dembski.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Quack
This may get Gary geared up to do more great things:
From talkorigins, wasnt able to extract link:
Quote A radical concept could revise theories addressing cognitive behavior.
Originally published:
Apr 19 2013 - 4:30pm
By:
Chris Gorski, ISNS
(ISNS) -- A single equation grounded in basic physics principles could describe intelligence and stimulate new insights in fields as diverse as finance and robotics, according to new research.
Alexander Wissner-Gross, a physicist at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Cameron Freer, a mathematician at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, developed an equation that they say describes many intelligent or cognitive behaviors, such as upright walking and tool use.
The researchers suggest that intelligent behavior stems from the impulse to seize control of future events in the environment. This is the exact opposite of the classic science-fiction scenario in which computers or robots become intelligent, then set their sights on taking over the world.
The findings describe a mathematical relationship that can "spontaneously induce remarkably sophisticated behaviors associated with the human 'cognitive niche,' including tool use and social cooperation, in simple physical systems," the researchers wrote in a paper published today in the journal Physical Review Letters.
"It's a provocative paper," said Simon DeDeo, a research fellow at the Santa Fe Institute, who studies biological and social systems. "It's not science as usual."
Wissner-Gross, a physicist, said the research was "very ambitious" and cited developments in multiple fields as the major inspirations.
The mathematics behind the research comes from the theory of how heat energy can do work and diffuse over time, called thermodynamics. One of the core concepts in physics is called entropy, which refers to the tendency of systems to evolve toward larger amounts of disorder. The second law of thermodynamics explains how in any isolated system, the amount of entropy tends to increase. A mirror can shatter into many pieces, but a collection of broken pieces will not reassemble into a mirror.
The new research proposes that entropy is directly connected to intelligent behavior.
"[The paper] is basically an attempt to describe intelligence as a fundamentally thermodynamic process," said Wissner-Gross.
The researchers developed a software engine, called Entropica, and gave it models of a number of situations in which it could demonstrate behaviors that greatly resemble intelligence. They patterned many of these exercises after classic animal intelligence tests.
In one test, the researchers presented Entropica with a situation where it could use one item as a tool to remove another item from a bin, and in another, it could move a cart to balance a rod standing straight up in the air. Governed by simple principles of thermodynamics, the software responded by displaying behavior similar to what people or animals might do, all without being given a specific goal for any scenario.
"It actually self-determines what its own objective is," said Wissner-Gross. "This [artificial intelligence] does not require the explicit specification of a goal, unlike essentially any other [artificial intelligence]."
Entropica's intelligent behavior emerges from the "physical process of trying to capture as many future histories as possible," said Wissner-Gross. Future histories represent the complete set of possible future outcomes available to a system at any given moment.
Wissner-Gross calls the concept at the center of the research "causal entropic forces." These forces are the motivation for intelligent behavior. They encourage a system to preserve as many future histories as possible. For example, in the cart-and-rod exercise, Entropica controls the cart to keep the rod upright. Allowing the rod to fall would drastically reduce the number of remaining future histories, or, in other words, lower the entropy of the cart-and-rod system. Keeping the rod upright maximizes the entropy. It maintains all future histories that can begin from that state, including those that require the cart to let the rod fall.
"The universe exists in the present state that it has right now. It can go off in lots of different directions. My proposal is that intelligence is a process that attempts to capture future histories," said Wissner-Gross.
The research may have applications beyond what is typically considered artificial intelligence, including language structure and social cooperation.
DeDeo said it would be interesting to use this new framework to examine Wikipedia, and research whether it, as a system, exhibited the same behaviors described in the paper.
"To me [the research] seems like a really authentic and honest attempt to wrestle with really big questions," said DeDeo.
One potential application of the research is in developing autonomous robots, which can react to changing environments and choose their own objectives.
"I would be very interested to learn more and better understand the mechanism by which they're achieving some impressive results, because it could potentially help our quest for artificial intelligence," said Jeff Clune, a computer scientist at the University of Wyoming.
Clune, who creates simulations of evolution and uses natural selection to evolve artificial intelligence and robots, expressed some reservations about the new research, which he suggested could be due to a difference in jargon used in different fields.
Wissner-Gross indicated that he expected to work closely with people in many fields in the future in order to help them understand how their fields informed the new research, and how the insights might be useful in those fields.
The new research was inspired by cutting-edge developments in many other disciplines. Some cosmologists have suggested that certain fundamental constants in nature have the values they do because otherwise humans would not be able to observe the universe. Advanced computer software can now compete with the best human players in chess and the strategy-based game called Go. The researchers even drew from what is known as the cognitive niche theory, which explains how intelligence can become an ecological niche and thereby influence natural selection.
The proposal requires that a system be able to process information and predict future histories very quickly in order for it to exhibit intelligent behavior. Wissner-Gross suggested that the new findings fit well within an argument linking the origin of intelligence to natural selection and Darwinian evolution -- that nothing besides the laws of nature are needed to explain intelligence.
Although Wissner-Gross suggested that he is confident in the results, he allowed that there is room for improvement, such as incorporating principles of quantum physics into the framework. Additionally, a company he founded is exploring commercial applications of the research in areas such as robotics, economics and defense.
"We basically view this as a grand unified theory of intelligence," said Wissner-Gross. "And I know that sounds perhaps impossibly ambitious, but it really does unify so many threads across a variety of fields, ranging from cosmology to computer science, animal behavior, and ties them all together in a beautiful thermodynamic picture."
Chris Gorski is an editor for Inside Science News Service.
http://www.insidescience.org/content....987
Original paper is here:
"Recent advances in fields ranging from cosmology to computer science have hinted at a possible deep connection between intelligence and entropy maximization, but no formal physical relationship between them has yet been established. Here, we explicitly propose a first step toward such a relationship in the form of a causal generalization of entropic forces that we find can cause two defining behaviors of the human “cognitive niche”—tool use and social cooperation—to spontaneously emerge in simple physical systems. Our results suggest a potentially general thermodynamic model of adaptive behavior as a nonequilibrium process in open systems."
http://prl.aps.org/abstrac....e168702
--
Steven L.
I think talkorigins is where Gary belongs. They endure IDiots to the end of times.
This may get Gary geared up to do more great things:
From talkorigins, wasnt able to extract link:
Quote A radical concept could revise theories addressing cognitive behavior.
Originally published:
Apr 19 2013 - 4:30pm
By:
Chris Gorski, ISNS
(ISNS) -- A single equation grounded in basic physics principles could describe intelligence and stimulate new insights in fields as diverse as finance and robotics, according to new research.
Alexander Wissner-Gross, a physicist at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Cameron Freer, a mathematician at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, developed an equation that they say describes many intelligent or cognitive behaviors, such as upright walking and tool use.
The researchers suggest that intelligent behavior stems from the impulse to seize control of future events in the environment. This is the exact opposite of the classic science-fiction scenario in which computers or robots become intelligent, then set their sights on taking over the world.
The findings describe a mathematical relationship that can "spontaneously induce remarkably sophisticated behaviors associated with the human 'cognitive niche,' including tool use and social cooperation, in simple physical systems," the researchers wrote in a paper published today in the journal Physical Review Letters.
"It's a provocative paper," said Simon DeDeo, a research fellow at the Santa Fe Institute, who studies biological and social systems. "It's not science as usual."
Wissner-Gross, a physicist, said the research was "very ambitious" and cited developments in multiple fields as the major inspirations.
The mathematics behind the research comes from the theory of how heat energy can do work and diffuse over time, called thermodynamics. One of the core concepts in physics is called entropy, which refers to the tendency of systems to evolve toward larger amounts of disorder. The second law of thermodynamics explains how in any isolated system, the amount of entropy tends to increase. A mirror can shatter into many pieces, but a collection of broken pieces will not reassemble into a mirror.
The new research proposes that entropy is directly connected to intelligent behavior.
"[The paper] is basically an attempt to describe intelligence as a fundamentally thermodynamic process," said Wissner-Gross.
The researchers developed a software engine, called Entropica, and gave it models of a number of situations in which it could demonstrate behaviors that greatly resemble intelligence. They patterned many of these exercises after classic animal intelligence tests.
In one test, the researchers presented Entropica with a situation where it could use one item as a tool to remove another item from a bin, and in another, it could move a cart to balance a rod standing straight up in the air. Governed by simple principles of thermodynamics, the software responded by displaying behavior similar to what people or animals might do, all without being given a specific goal for any scenario.
"It actually self-determines what its own objective is," said Wissner-Gross. "This [artificial intelligence] does not require the explicit specification of a goal, unlike essentially any other [artificial intelligence]."
Entropica's intelligent behavior emerges from the "physical process of trying to capture as many future histories as possible," said Wissner-Gross. Future histories represent the complete set of possible future outcomes available to a system at any given moment.
Wissner-Gross calls the concept at the center of the research "causal entropic forces." These forces are the motivation for intelligent behavior. They encourage a system to preserve as many future histories as possible. For example, in the cart-and-rod exercise, Entropica controls the cart to keep the rod upright. Allowing the rod to fall would drastically reduce the number of remaining future histories, or, in other words, lower the entropy of the cart-and-rod system. Keeping the rod upright maximizes the entropy. It maintains all future histories that can begin from that state, including those that require the cart to let the rod fall.
"The universe exists in the present state that it has right now. It can go off in lots of different directions. My proposal is that intelligence is a process that attempts to capture future histories," said Wissner-Gross.
The research may have applications beyond what is typically considered artificial intelligence, including language structure and social cooperation.
DeDeo said it would be interesting to use this new framework to examine Wikipedia, and research whether it, as a system, exhibited the same behaviors described in the paper.
"To me [the research] seems like a really authentic and honest attempt to wrestle with really big questions," said DeDeo.
One potential application of the research is in developing autonomous robots, which can react to changing environments and choose their own objectives.
"I would be very interested to learn more and better understand the mechanism by which they're achieving some impressive results, because it could potentially help our quest for artificial intelligence," said Jeff Clune, a computer scientist at the University of Wyoming.
Clune, who creates simulations of evolution and uses natural selection to evolve artificial intelligence and robots, expressed some reservations about the new research, which he suggested could be due to a difference in jargon used in different fields.
Wissner-Gross indicated that he expected to work closely with people in many fields in the future in order to help them understand how their fields informed the new research, and how the insights might be useful in those fields.
The new research was inspired by cutting-edge developments in many other disciplines. Some cosmologists have suggested that certain fundamental constants in nature have the values they do because otherwise humans would not be able to observe the universe. Advanced computer software can now compete with the best human players in chess and the strategy-based game called Go. The researchers even drew from what is known as the cognitive niche theory, which explains how intelligence can become an ecological niche and thereby influence natural selection.
The proposal requires that a system be able to process information and predict future histories very quickly in order for it to exhibit intelligent behavior. Wissner-Gross suggested that the new findings fit well within an argument linking the origin of intelligence to natural selection and Darwinian evolution -- that nothing besides the laws of nature are needed to explain intelligence.
Although Wissner-Gross suggested that he is confident in the results, he allowed that there is room for improvement, such as incorporating principles of quantum physics into the framework. Additionally, a company he founded is exploring commercial applications of the research in areas such as robotics, economics and defense.
"We basically view this as a grand unified theory of intelligence," said Wissner-Gross. "And I know that sounds perhaps impossibly ambitious, but it really does unify so many threads across a variety of fields, ranging from cosmology to computer science, animal behavior, and ties them all together in a beautiful thermodynamic picture."
Chris Gorski is an editor for Inside Science News Service.
http://www.insidescience.org/content....987
Original paper is here:
"Recent advances in fields ranging from cosmology to computer science have hinted at a possible deep connection between intelligence and entropy maximization, but no formal physical relationship between them has yet been established. Here, we explicitly propose a first step toward such a relationship in the form of a causal generalization of entropic forces that we find can cause two defining behaviors of the human “cognitive niche”—tool use and social cooperation—to spontaneously emerge in simple physical systems. Our results suggest a potentially general thermodynamic model of adaptive behavior as a nonequilibrium process in open systems."
http://prl.aps.org/abstrac....e168702
--
Steven L.
I think talkorigins is where Gary belongs. They endure IDiots to the end of times.
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by The whole truth
There's something I'd like you all to think about. First, read some crap from joey:
Joe GDecember 27, 2012 at 6:36 AM
(velikovskys) So what's that got to do with existence of God,just because God isn't required to move the planets doesn't mean God is non existent.
(joey) How do you know that God isn't required to move planets? Please demonstrate tat gravity could exist in a universe without God.
(velikovskys) How do you figure, societies which are atheistic have prohibitions on certain antisocial behavior ,rape ,murder, theft.
(joey) So what? That doesn't mean anything.
(velikovskys) So what makes it moral, Joe?
(joey) A designer who makes it so.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012....of.html
--------------------------------
Notice that velikovskys used the word "God" and so did joey, but then joey switched from "God" to "A designer". You're all aware of the wedge document and terms like "cdesign proponentsists", "the designer", "intelligent design", "ID inference", "ID movement", etc.
The IDiot-creationists are certainly referring to their imaginary, so-called god when they say "the designer" or "intelligent design", etc., etc., because they don't want to use the words 'creator' or 'creation' or 'created' or 'creationist' because they want to ruin science and try to fool people and skirt the laws against teaching their religion in public school science classes and try to cram their religion into public policy/government and every aspect of everyone's life.
What's been bugging me and what I'd like you all to think about is that the IDiot-creationists have been somewhat successful in getting their opponents to use their terminology, which can make it appear that that terminology has or might have some credibility.
I have already used the following terms a lot but from now on I'm going to stick to the words 'creator', 'creation', 'created', 'god', yhwh, allah, or whatever is correct, and only use the words 'designer', 'design', etc., if necessary to point out the IDiots' dishonesty.
When the IDiots say 'design' or 'designer' they actually mean 'creation' and 'creator' so why should we go along with their attempts at deception? Why shouldn't we use the correct terms? Why should we play their deceptive games by any of their dishonest rules?
There's something I'd like you all to think about. First, read some crap from joey:
Joe GDecember 27, 2012 at 6:36 AM
(velikovskys) So what's that got to do with existence of God,just because God isn't required to move the planets doesn't mean God is non existent.
(joey) How do you know that God isn't required to move planets? Please demonstrate tat gravity could exist in a universe without God.
(velikovskys) How do you figure, societies which are atheistic have prohibitions on certain antisocial behavior ,rape ,murder, theft.
(joey) So what? That doesn't mean anything.
(velikovskys) So what makes it moral, Joe?
(joey) A designer who makes it so.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012....of.html
--------------------------------
Notice that velikovskys used the word "God" and so did joey, but then joey switched from "God" to "A designer". You're all aware of the wedge document and terms like "cdesign proponentsists", "the designer", "intelligent design", "ID inference", "ID movement", etc.
The IDiot-creationists are certainly referring to their imaginary, so-called god when they say "the designer" or "intelligent design", etc., etc., because they don't want to use the words 'creator' or 'creation' or 'created' or 'creationist' because they want to ruin science and try to fool people and skirt the laws against teaching their religion in public school science classes and try to cram their religion into public policy/government and every aspect of everyone's life.
What's been bugging me and what I'd like you all to think about is that the IDiot-creationists have been somewhat successful in getting their opponents to use their terminology, which can make it appear that that terminology has or might have some credibility.
I have already used the following terms a lot but from now on I'm going to stick to the words 'creator', 'creation', 'created', 'god', yhwh, allah, or whatever is correct, and only use the words 'designer', 'design', etc., if necessary to point out the IDiots' dishonesty.
When the IDiots say 'design' or 'designer' they actually mean 'creation' and 'creator' so why should we go along with their attempts at deception? Why shouldn't we use the correct terms? Why should we play their deceptive games by any of their dishonest rules?
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Nomad
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 10 2013,22:44)The question is whether a memory that has contents which change over time is a RAM or a ROM?
Bits & Bytes - ROM and RAM
You can easily enough burn a neural network ROM chip but like a digital ROM chip after that the data stays whatever was burned into it, cannot be changed. Using a neural ROM instead of RAM takes away the system's ability to self-learn, form new memories of the world they are in, needed to adapt to new environments. Result is an unintelligent zombie that may at first appear to be intelligent but they are missing something necessary, a RAM, not a ROM.
Okay this is pretty good. Gary, you did respond to what I said this time. I acknowledge that, you explained what you feel you are specifying in saying RAM each time. This is good, but it still leaves some problems that need to be addressed. Let's try to substitute the meaning of RAM as you say you intended it into the quote I used earlier.
"when modeling using a neural network for a form of memory that can have changing values over time". Nope. Still doesn't make sense. You are putting your neural network (if there is such a thing at all) into RAM. There's really no need to state RAM at all, you are modelling it in a computer program and so it's pretty darned safe to assume that it's going into RAM. I don't think there's a need to specify to people that you're not planning to make your entire data set read only. But the way you have it phrased, you seem to suggest that you are using a neural network to perform the function of RAM. Your order is wrong, but the way you've used it in other places is wrong in other ways that makes me think there's other problems.
For instance, the way you seemed to imply that a brain is basically a block of RAM. Oh no it isn't. If you insist on continuing the computer analogy, a brain is both memory and a CPU. Frankly I think calling a brain an FPGA would be more accurate, because it's a system where the logic gates themselves can be rewritten. Computer memory is just numbers being rewritten. Meat brains rewrite their own architecture. New experiences cause new pathways to be formed, not just a new number stored in a new bank. Not even the seemingly fundamental circuit of a connection to a motor or sensor pathway is static. I've had some of my sensor neurons remap after a certain traumatic event, the short story is a certain kind of junk food snack cake was ruined for me because of a curious way in which my sense of taste was altered. Now you can simulate all of this within a conventional computer system, yes, but that doesn't mean that the brain is as simple as a conventional computer system. Just because you model it within RAM does not make it equivalent to RAM. You need to stop taking that unjustified leap and calling everything RAM.
I'm suggesting this again to you. When you talk about storing a certain data point in memory, that is a variable. It is not "a RAM". Maybe others here more experienced with this kind of thing could suggest a better word still, but RAM is a poor term that confuses more than it informs.
When referring to other things you need some more terms still. The brain is not a RAM bank. It is a weird kind of thing where the memory is the same thing as the CPU. It is a kind of hybrid logic system that combines electro-chemical messaging with dynamic hardware restructuring, all happening at the same time. You do it a grave disservice in reducing it down to the level of random access memory.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 10 2013,22:44)The question is whether a memory that has contents which change over time is a RAM or a ROM?
Bits & Bytes - ROM and RAM
You can easily enough burn a neural network ROM chip but like a digital ROM chip after that the data stays whatever was burned into it, cannot be changed. Using a neural ROM instead of RAM takes away the system's ability to self-learn, form new memories of the world they are in, needed to adapt to new environments. Result is an unintelligent zombie that may at first appear to be intelligent but they are missing something necessary, a RAM, not a ROM.
Okay this is pretty good. Gary, you did respond to what I said this time. I acknowledge that, you explained what you feel you are specifying in saying RAM each time. This is good, but it still leaves some problems that need to be addressed. Let's try to substitute the meaning of RAM as you say you intended it into the quote I used earlier.
"when modeling using a neural network for a form of memory that can have changing values over time". Nope. Still doesn't make sense. You are putting your neural network (if there is such a thing at all) into RAM. There's really no need to state RAM at all, you are modelling it in a computer program and so it's pretty darned safe to assume that it's going into RAM. I don't think there's a need to specify to people that you're not planning to make your entire data set read only. But the way you have it phrased, you seem to suggest that you are using a neural network to perform the function of RAM. Your order is wrong, but the way you've used it in other places is wrong in other ways that makes me think there's other problems.
For instance, the way you seemed to imply that a brain is basically a block of RAM. Oh no it isn't. If you insist on continuing the computer analogy, a brain is both memory and a CPU. Frankly I think calling a brain an FPGA would be more accurate, because it's a system where the logic gates themselves can be rewritten. Computer memory is just numbers being rewritten. Meat brains rewrite their own architecture. New experiences cause new pathways to be formed, not just a new number stored in a new bank. Not even the seemingly fundamental circuit of a connection to a motor or sensor pathway is static. I've had some of my sensor neurons remap after a certain traumatic event, the short story is a certain kind of junk food snack cake was ruined for me because of a curious way in which my sense of taste was altered. Now you can simulate all of this within a conventional computer system, yes, but that doesn't mean that the brain is as simple as a conventional computer system. Just because you model it within RAM does not make it equivalent to RAM. You need to stop taking that unjustified leap and calling everything RAM.
I'm suggesting this again to you. When you talk about storing a certain data point in memory, that is a variable. It is not "a RAM". Maybe others here more experienced with this kind of thing could suggest a better word still, but RAM is a poor term that confuses more than it informs.
When referring to other things you need some more terms still. The brain is not a RAM bank. It is a weird kind of thing where the memory is the same thing as the CPU. It is a kind of hybrid logic system that combines electro-chemical messaging with dynamic hardware restructuring, all happening at the same time. You do it a grave disservice in reducing it down to the level of random access memory.
Categories: AE Public BB
The Skeptical Zone
Post by midwifetoad
Paging Lizzie. Your domain name requires attention.
Paging Lizzie. Your domain name requires attention.
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by The whole truth
Quote (Febble @ May 11 2013,01:06)The emoticon went crazy, and added words to your last paragraph?
Awesome!
You got me!
I've corrected it.
Quote (Febble @ May 11 2013,01:06)The emoticon went crazy, and added words to your last paragraph?
Awesome!
You got me!
I've corrected it.
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by Febble
The emoticon went crazy, and added words to your last paragraph?
Awesome!
The emoticon went crazy, and added words to your last paragraph?
Awesome!
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by The whole truth
joey says:
"Also the ONLY way nature had anything to do with babies is if (and only if) life arose from non-life via purely natural processes (and then to the question, where did nature come from?)."
Will someone with more patience than I have please explain to joey where babies come from?
"As I have stated- you can only consider my or my wife's body parts as being part of nature if life originated via purely natural processes."
So, joey, yours and your wife's body parts are supernatural? All of them or just some of them? Will you please describe the allegedly supernatural parts so that they can be scientifically compared to natural body parts?
"How is sex a natural process? What is your basis for defining it as such?"
Oh boy.
Did allah-yhwh design-create all of the sexual "body parts" and all of the ways that sex is done by every sexual organism?
joey says:
"Also the ONLY way nature had anything to do with babies is if (and only if) life arose from non-life via purely natural processes (and then to the question, where did nature come from?)."
Will someone with more patience than I have please explain to joey where babies come from?
"As I have stated- you can only consider my or my wife's body parts as being part of nature if life originated via purely natural processes."
So, joey, yours and your wife's body parts are supernatural? All of them or just some of them? Will you please describe the allegedly supernatural parts so that they can be scientifically compared to natural body parts?
"How is sex a natural process? What is your basis for defining it as such?"
Oh boy.
Did allah-yhwh design-create all of the sexual "body parts" and all of the ways that sex is done by every sexual organism?
Categories: AE Public BB
The Bathroom Wall
Categories: AE Public BB
Wildlife
Post by Arctodus23
Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 04 2013,18:54) Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 04 2013,18:53)This is a Sciurus vulgaris, a species of squirrel:
I've been having trouble lately, with Commons,
Here's it again:
Got it:
Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 04 2013,18:54) Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 04 2013,18:53)This is a Sciurus vulgaris, a species of squirrel:
I've been having trouble lately, with Commons,
Here's it again:
Got it:
Categories: AE Public BB
Wildlife
Post by Arctodus23
Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 04 2013,18:53)This is a Sciurus vulgaris, a species of squirrel:
I've been having trouble lately, with Commons,
Here's it again:
Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 04 2013,18:53)This is a Sciurus vulgaris, a species of squirrel:
I've been having trouble lately, with Commons,
Here's it again:
Categories: AE Public BB
Wildlife
Post by Arctodus23
This is a Sciurus vulgaris, a species of squirrel:
This is a Sciurus vulgaris, a species of squirrel:
Categories: AE Public BB
Alternative reality wikis
Post by Nomad
So, about that E=mc^2 denialism, umm...
How exactly did this happen:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci....140.htm
An Argonne national laboratory run "ask a scientist" site that says that compressing a spring increases its mass because of the aforementioned formula? The hell?
So, about that E=mc^2 denialism, umm...
How exactly did this happen:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci....140.htm
An Argonne national laboratory run "ask a scientist" site that says that compressing a spring increases its mass because of the aforementioned formula? The hell?
Categories: AE Public BB
