What if Joe would look up Brownian motion?
The decision of the Wyoming legislature to prevent the state from adopting the Next Generation Science Standards because of concerns about their presentation of climate change continues to attract spirited criticism in editorial and opinion columns, both in Wyoming and nationally.
When the Oklahoma legislature adjourned on May 23, 2014, the attempt to derail Oklahoma's new state science standards was stymied.
The eminent biologist Gerald Edelman died on May 17, 2014, at the age of 84, according to The New York Times (May 22, 2014).
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 debunking and confronting science denial, describing resources and techniques as well as offering a chance to share experiences.
House Joint Resolution 1099, which would reject the state department of education's rules implementing Oklahoma's new science standards, was passed by the Oklahoma House of Representatives on a 55-31 vote on May 21, 2014. Part of the reason, the Tulsa World (May 22, 2014) explained, was that "[s]ome legislators ... objected to language they said appeared to encourage an 'agenda' concerning climate change."
NCSE is pleased to announce that the latest issue of Reports of the National Center for Science Education is now available on-line.
The New York Times (May 19, 2014) covered the Wyoming legislature's decision to block the Next Generation Science Standards because of their treatment of climate change.
The Columbian mammoth is now the official state fossil of South Carolina after Governor Nikki Haley signed House Bill 4482 into law on May 16, 2014 — and there was no mention of the Sixth Day of Creation.
Two antievolution bills died in committee in the Missouri House of Representatives on May 16, 2014, when the legislature adjourned.
Quote (Nomad @ May 14 2014,22:53)Where did I say that there is no RAM in a PC? How can you misread what I repeatedly say that badly?
I also have to explain how the circuit works in a PC.
How biology accomplishes the same thing is another matter where what the equivalent mechanism is named is still "RAM".
Where did I say that there is no RAM in a PC? How can you misread what I repeatedly say that badly?
Now we're back to claims that suggest there is no RAM in the PC used to model the circuit by using code that dimensions a "RAM array" to store all the critter's memories in, by trying to argue with that there is no analogy to RAM in a neural brain when it should be obvious from the way the model works that there is.
No evidence has ever been presented to the contrary of what is stated in the the theory and is in the the models.
I'm getting annoyed by the nameless mudslingers who have nothing better to do than complain over nothing, because they don't like the terminology of science and electronics required to study intelligence.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 14 2014,06:09)Not all "Neural Networks" are even a RAM substitute. Your arguments become ridiculous.
Not a single one is, Gary. Yet you think they can be, despite your quaint little experiment making it quite clear to you that a system like this requires more than just RAM.
How did you miss the implications of your own work that badly?
Of course you do Gary. But that's due far more to your idee fixe, your presuppositions and fixations, than to any genuine merit in the notion.
The brain does not have RAM.
Ears do not address memory locations by address.
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 14 2014,14:24)This will be viral in a few days. Might as well see it here first.
Of course, we've had a few dog attacks in our neighborhood too.
This is a must-read:
Strongly interacting electrons in wacky oxide synchronize to work like the brain
When I visualize this (more neural) technology in a speech recognition system I see a RAM being addressed by an ear.