news aggregator

Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (N.Wells @ April 28 2014,19:28)"predicts":  no such prediction; that's an empty assertion.
"created by": unsupported assertion
"self-similar": no fractal equations, no statement about dimensions over which the relationship holds; meaningless buzzwords
"behavior of matter causes..."  If it's self-assembly then by definition it can't be caused by something else.  You haven't explained how behavior of matter causes molecular intelligence.  You haven't demonstrated that there is such a thing as molecular intelligence.
Biological systems (other than individual organisms) don't learn, and if they did it would be by copying mistakes and selection rather than by replication alone.
"Descendant offspring" is redundant.
"Learned instinctual behavior" is an oxymoron.
How can cellular intelligence and molecular intelligence both be said to control locomotion/migration and social differentiation?
"Occupation"???
Etc.
But that was helpful for strengthening the theory:

  Quote This theory has explained why we are a product of intelligent design that contains a trinity of emergent levels of biological intelligence, as follows:

(1) Molecular Intelligence: Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular intelligence, whereby genome-based biological systems learn over time by replication of accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells and is the primary source of our instinctual behavior.

(2) Cellular Intelligence: Molecular intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular intelligence. This intelligence level controls moment to moment cellular responses such as locomotion/migration and social differentiation (i.e. neural plasticity).

(3) Multicellular Intelligence: Cellular intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular intelligence. In this case a multicellular body is controlled by an intelligent neural brain expressing all three intelligence levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly) and other behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, locomotion/migration and social differentiation (i.e. occupation).

The combined knowledge of all three of these intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may stay to defend their nests "till death do they part". Otherwise merciless alligators fiercely protect their well-cared-for offspring who are taught how to lure nest building birds into range by putting sticks on their head and will scurry into her mouth when in danger. For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from an eternal conscious loving "spirit" existing at another level our multicellular intelligence level cannot directly experience. It is of course possible that one or both of the parents will later lose interest in the partnership, or they may have more offspring than they can possibly take care of, or none at all, but "for better or for worse" for such intelligence anywhere in the universe, there will nonetheless be the strong love we still need and cherish to guide us, forever through generations of time...
Thanks!

Now try to trash that.

Post by N.Wells
Gary, it's your frigging conclusions section: are we supposed to think that your conclusions only pertain to humans???  In the middle of your talking about behavior of matter causing molecular intelligence and "molecular intelligence" causing "cellular intelligence", we are supposed to think that one sentence is magically restricted to pertaining only to humans???  That's downright nuts.  

Also, it's not our fault that you can't write clearly and comprehensibly.

NCSE is pleased to announce the winners of the Friend of Darwin award for 2014: Eric Rothschild, Stephen G. Harvey, Witold Walczak, Richard B. Katskee, and Faye Flam. The first four recipients led the victorious legal team representing the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover, the 2005 case establishing the unconstitutionality of teaching "intelligent design" in the public schools; Flam, a science journalist, wrote "Planet of the Apes" — the only newspaper column dedicated to evolution — for the Philadelphia Inquirer from 2010 to 2012.

Wyoming's newspapers continue to carry a variety of news and comment following the legislature's decision to preclude the use of any state funds to review or adopt the Next Generation Science Standards — a decision reportedly owing to objections to the NGSS's treatment of climate change, as NCSE previously reported — and the state board of education's subsequent decision not to implement the standards. Of particular interest are a guest column from a professor in the department of plant sciences at the University of Wyoming, a report on how teachers in Laramie, the third largest city in the state, are going to proceed, and a brief commentary from NCSE's deputy director.

On evolution, the public is more in line with scientific skepticism than Darwin's defenders would give you to understand. David Klinghoffer http://www.discovery.org/p/209

I've just watched it myself, and it matches my expectations based on what I had read. David Klinghoffer http://www.discovery.org/p/209

Wow, congratulations to the team from Discovery Institute, especially John West and Wesley Smith! David Klinghoffer http://www.discovery.org/p/209

My new ebook, The War on Humans, documents the decline of the environmental movement toward a utopian and explicit anti-human ideology. Wesley J. Smith http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism

Post by dhogaza
OK, a few from this week …









Yes, that last one is of a very young calf.

Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2014,10:09)I'd like to re-iterate my view of that algorithm.  It's usable for modelling artificial selection.  It would also be okay for a model of natural selection that was designed to allow users to tweak natural selection pressures or set minimum fitness levels before being allowed to reproduce, just to let the users see how populations respond to different levels of selection.

The ID Causation model indicates that "artificial selection" and "natural selection" are an unnecessary false dichotomy:
Quote
From Theory of Intelligent Design:

As in Social Learning Theory, there is reciprocal causation where the person (or living thing), the behavior, and the environment can have an influence on each other (A influences B and B influences A).

There is no algorithm variable that allows users to "tweak natural selection pressures". That would require purposely interfering with what programmatically develops in the model, or purposely leaving something out such as continental drift.

Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2014,10:09)However, it's not particularly good for modelling real-world evolutionary progressions, because the real world keeps changing both the context in which evolution is occurring and the levels of performance in meeting life's challenges that permit success in reproduction: new predators, competitors, and/or potential prey species move in, other predators / competitors / prey species go extinct or move away; the climate keeps changing; sea levels rise or fall, frequencies of natural hazards change; continents split apart, and so on and so forth.  Therefore, in the real world there is no such thing as a "desired level of fitness".  Possibly even worse, there is no such thing as a target in evolution. Every individual has the de facto goal of reproducing and successfully raising offspring (more technically, ensuring and even enhancing the propagation of their genes over succeeding generations).

That's why I program using an algorithm that does not have these inherent ambiguities.

Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2014,10:09)However, there is no set target, such as "we have to develop long necks" or "big brains" or "become a whale".

That also becomes another unnecessary false dichotomy. Humans have long been on target to develop big brains. The question becomes: What set that target and not another target?

Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2014,10:09)There is simply the de facto goal of whatever works well enough, for the moment, because any genome that fails to reproduce itself disappears.

And what has for millions of years worked for humanity is the set target towards increasing multicellular brainpower. It's also more than just making brains bigger, we required improved brain circuit designs. I expect that this set target is still set.

Post by midwifetoad
Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 24 2014,14:13)If God had wanted us not to masturbate, he'd have organised things such that we couldn't. I can't tickle myself, so that's obviously something He has put beyond the pale.
But if you don't record it, you're an undocumented wanker.

Post by Soapy Sam
If God had wanted us not to masturbate, he'd have organised things such that we couldn't. I can't tickle myself, so that's obviously something He has put beyond the pale.

Post by NoName
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 21 2014,09:31) Quote (Nomad @ April 21 2014,06:00)Pssst.  Hey Gary.  You know how you're so proud about your model possessing "rat level navigation"?

How about bird level navigation?

http://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv......sis.pdf

In this instance evolutionary algorithms were used to evolve the control logic to autonomously fly a simulated unmanned aerial vehicle to a landing on board a naval vessel.

Can your bug do that?
Yes.
Also known as the Sheldon Cooper defense -- it can but it chooses not to.

Pity Gary is neither as talented nor as funny as Sheldon, or the actor that portrays him.

Post by NoName
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 24 2014,13:57) Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2014,09:28)The causation model has a “Design” form and the software can be tweaked in a way that makes the user the Designer. But since this represents all the behavioral levels on down to the “behavior of matter” it's simply a way to get around the technological problem of atoms on up modeling of an entire planet currently being impossible, in which case “behavioral cause” then “intelligent cause” would create the virtual plants and animals including humans.
This paragraph makes no sense whatsoever.  I know this is like "Dog Bites Man," but it provides a good example of how muddled thinking results in muddled writing.
Insofar as sense can be extracted from it, it blows two of Gary's claims out of the water.
First, that intelligence "emerges".  This bit of Dadaist prose asserts that it's intelligence all the way down and all the way up.
Second, it reinforces the view that Gary's effluent is circular and ultimately question begging.  Gary "explains" intelligence by insisting that it is somehow 'already there', at every level from 'the behavior of matter' to the level of organisms.

Gary never tires of repeatedly shooting himself in the foot with these sorts of absurd and self-refuting claims.
'Sewn together wrong.'

Post by Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2014,09:28)The causation model has a “Design” form and the software can be tweaked in a way that makes the user the Designer. But since this represents all the behavioral levels on down to the “behavior of matter” it's simply a way to get around the technological problem of atoms on up modeling of an entire planet currently being impossible, in which case “behavioral cause” then “intelligent cause” would create the virtual plants and animals including humans.
This paragraph makes no sense whatsoever.  I know this is like "Dog Bites Man," but it provides a good example of how muddled thinking results in muddled writing.

Louisiana's Senate Bill 175 (PDF) was tabled on a 3-1 vote in the Senate Education Committee on April 24, 2014, which effectively kills the bill in committee, according to the Baton Rouge Advocate (April 24, 2014).

Post by midwifetoad
more selfie than selfless.

Post by Lou FCD
Pileated Woodpecker (male) yesterday at Greenfield Lake.

Pileated Woodpecker (male) by Lou FCD, on Flickr

Post by N.Wells
I'd like to re-iterate my view of that algorithm.  It's usable for modelling artificial selection.  It would also be okay for a model of natural selection that was designed to allow users to tweak natural selection pressures or set minimum fitness levels before being allowed to reproduce, just to let the users see how populations respond to different levels of selection.  

However, it's not particularly good for modelling real-world evolutionary progressions, because the real world keeps changing the context in which evolution is occurring: new predators, competitors, and/or potential prey species move in, other predators / competitors / prey species go extinct or move away; the climate keeps changing; sea levels rise or fall, frequencies of natural hazards change; continents split apart, and so on and so forth.  Therefore, in the real world there is no such thing as a "desired level of fitness".  Possibly even worse, there is no such thing as a target in evolution. Every individual has the de facto goal of reproducing and successfully raising offspring (more technically, ensuring and even enhancing the propagation of their genes over succeeding generations).  However, there is no set target, such as "we have to develop long necks" or "big brains" or "become a whale".  There is simply the de facto goal of whatever works well enough, for the moment, because any genome that fails to reproduce itself disappears.

Post by GaryGaulin
I just looked up “genetic algorithm desired fitness” and found a good amount of academic information, including at Google Scholar where the phrase “Desired Properties” was also found.

Maybe I should just agree this GA step that goes by several names is not “in nature” then wait to see where the discussion goes from here. In my opinion the generalization (within limits) has some usefulness, even though it is can also be used as a misleading oversimplification.

I also need to add:
The causation model has a “Design” form and the software can be tweaked in a way that makes the user the Designer. But since this represents all the behavioral levels on down to the “behavior of matter” it's simply a way to get around the technological problem of atoms on up modeling of an entire planet currently being impossible, in which case “behavioral cause” then “intelligent cause” would create the virtual plants and animals including humans.