Skip navigation.
Home
The Critic's Resource on AntiEvolution

news aggregator

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-05-09 14:20
Post by Bob O'H
Quote (sparc @ May 09 2014,03:36)Even without extremities gpuccio will still call it a draw:
  Quote 17 JLAfan2001 May 8, 2014 at 7:27 am
gpuccio

19% functional is long cry from 80%.
  Quote 18 gpuccio May 8, 2014 at 7:38 am
JLAfan2001:

OK, but the ENCODE data still show activity for 80% of DNA. Nothing has changed. We will see how much of that is confirmed as functional in independent ways. Science must be patient.

edited to correct links and spacing
There's a nice review of the case for "junk DNA" in PLOS Genetics, which I'm sure won't be mis-interpreted by 'news' at all.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-05-09 14:07
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 08 2014,22:18)Gary:

      Quote
I think that it is rude to demand a citation from someone who is only explaining how Watson works.


Gary:

    Quote
Of course there is no mention by star of "temporal correlation" being "the way Watson works" you are the lunkhead who mentioned it.


"star0":

    Quote
Here's how you can derive "causation" from Big Data: suppose you have two "factors", call them X and Y. You know, based on data, that X is correlated with Y. But you don't know whether X causes Y, Y causes X, or whether there is no causal relation between them. One example of how they can be correlated, but for which there is no causal relation is if there is a THIRD factor Z that causes both of them. You can render these possibilities as graphical models as:

X --> Y,

X <-- Y, and

X <-- Z --> Y

How can you decide which one it is? Well, you can disentangle the first two, in some cases, through temporal knowledge. e.g. Usually, X --> Y implies that X precedes Y; but the converse is not true. So, you can do some temporal reasoning to eliminate possibilities. And there are other ways to separate them; for example, you can mine text, and look to see how people speak about the relationship between X and Y. Individuals are maybe not to be trusted, but high-quality sources are -- and individuals, in aggregate, are, in some cases (and, you can even do deeper modeling and figure out when they are and when they aren't).

Now what about the third possibility? Well, you need some candidate Zs to work with. And how can you find those? Again, this is where data-mining comes in: you go to the web, and look for co-occurrence of (X,Y) with other factors Z. Once you've located a set of possible Z's, then you need to determine whether the third possibility holds. You can, for instance, ELIMINATE the third case, again, using temporal reasoning. And you can do even more elaborate things.


Gary, what "star0" discusses above *is* temporal correlation. The 2003 Nobel Prize in Economics went to Clive Granger, in part for his development of temporal correlation as the basis for his causality test. What "star0" did not assert was that IBM's "Watson" uses temporal correlation for detecting causality. In fact, "star0" makes no claim at all about any method that "Watson" might be using in the entirety of that post.

To sum up: "star0" does discuss temporal correlation, but does not discuss "Watson" in that post (thus "star0" was not "explaining how Watson works", at least not in the post Gary quoted and I was referring to).

Gary is 0 for 2.

"Lunkhead", when used by Gary, means "perceptive".
Explaining how Watson works was in a number of their threads. That information came from just one of them. This one does maybe go into more than what Watson has but I would not be surprised by it already having that as well.

Star0 used the phrase "temporal reasoning" when talking about "causation" and I'm not sure whether they would agree that "temporal correlation" is a direct substitute. It might be, but in this case the question is why David Ferrucci said “People are so enamored with the data-driven approach that they believe correlation is sufficient."

This evening I'll have some time to go over your leads.

And "lunkhead" was to go with earlier reply about it sometimes getting like Three Stooges in this thread. It's a bit of humor without personal insult like I was responding to that you hurled at me.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-05-09 13:45
Post by REC
As silly as UD is, the denizens there are made to look like geniuses by some of the YECs out there.

Take this guy Nathaniel T. Jeanson, who claims to have a PhD from Harvard.

Here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCVE5BwBrUk
Quote We can't say that we are closer to, say, chimps than we are to yeast, because chimps and humans are equally distant from yeast.

Holy hell. You're doing it wrong. I promise you that despite all of us being equally distant to my great aunt, that I can prove I am more closely related to my sister than my first cousin. It is beautiful that in his presentation he has the data to do phylogeny right, then discards it, and from the resulting mess, claims to have "disproved evolution."

Here: http://www.icr.org/article...., he applies a molecular clock to mitochondria, multiplying millions of years or 6000 years by the mutation rate. The number of differences works better for the YEC model. He conveniently forgets mitochondria have small (20,000 base) genomes, and that he has predicted 2-3 million coding changes. Oops. (Not to mention mtDNA is probably not neutral, he picked the most rapidly evolving segment "D-loop" to get his molecular clock, and he never states what genomes he's comparing).

I take it back. This guy can't be that dumb. He's just lying.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-05-09 12:06
Post by NoName
Quote (NoName @ April 26 2014,21:41) Quote (NoName @ April 26 2014,09:06)   Quote (NoName @ Aug. 24 2013,07:25)       Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2013,02:44)       Quote (didymos @ Aug. 24 2013,02:35)         Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2013,23:21)         Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 22 2013,09:16)Seemingly Mentally Ill Internet Commenter Presumably Functions In Outside World
Why did you post that?
C'mon, Gary.  You're not that clueless, are you?
Explain it to me please.
How about we get right on that -- right after you take care of some of the outstanding explanations you owe us.

Like what do you mean when you say natural selection is subjective?
What do you mean when you say natural selection cannot be quantified?

How does 'molecular intelligence' differ from, or go above and beyond, the standard laws of chemistry and physics?

How does 'cellular intelligence' differ from, or go above and beyond, the standard laws of chemistry and physics?

Those will do for starters.
Gee, from August of last year.
Gary sure has moved on, having already answered and explained all the outstanding issues raised here.
In some alternate universe that apparently only exists inside his head -- gods know there's plenty of space for one.
These questions remain, Gary.  You have not addressed them, you have not shown them to be irrelevant to your "theory", you have not disqualified them in any respect.
They follow directly from the claims you make and the terms in which you chose to make them.
If you believe we are misconstruing your meaning or intent, it is incumbent on you to rectify your failure to communicate.  If we do not misconstrue them, then it is incumbent on you to elaborate and justify the claims we find to be unsupported by logic or evidence.
We have provided evidence for our claims and directed you to massive amounts of additional evidence and reasoning, almost always with specific references.  You have provided less than nothing comparable.
As I have already pointed out once today, it's your "theory" -- deal with it.
Bears repeating, as Gary begins his shift from focus on his  "theory" to focus on his software.  As I predicted would happen.

It is always funny to see Gary complaining about people jumping to conclusions.  It is particularly so when the complaint arises in a context where it is clear the ultimate fault lies in Gary's inability to communicate in a clear and straightforward manner coupled with his adamant refusal to engage with questions or criticisms.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-05-09 08:36
Post by sparc
Even without extremities gpuccio will still call it a draw:
Quote 17 JLAfan2001May 8, 2014 at 7:27 am

gpuccio

19% functional is long cry from 80%.
Quote 18 gpuccio May 8, 2014 at 7:38 am
JLAfan2001:

OK, but the ENCODE data still show activity for 80% of DNA. Nothing has changed. We will see how much of that is confirmed as functional in independent ways. Science must be patient.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-05-09 03:43
Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
Heiserman is a pragmatist. Gary, on the other hand, is an ideologue. Thus the dogmatic rejection by Gary of any documentation that his cited source actually embraced a CPU as part of the circuitry to achieve a physically implemented robot.

The documentation doesn't disappear simply because Gary finds it inconvenient, though.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-05-09 03:37
Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
Oh, there was one more bit from Gary worth noting, his continued intransigence in forthrightly admitting that I was right about Heiserman and CPUs. Gary continues to blither about Heiserman's simulations, though those are completely irrelevant to the robots Heiserman actually constructed.

Heiserman's physical gamma-class robot required the use of an 8085 CPU. I've quoted Heiserman discussing exactly that.

Gary continues to ignore that that is established.

Gary also has never ponied up so much as a simulation of a gamma-class Heiserman agent, at least not that I've been able to determine. Gary could correct any misapprehension on that score on my part by specifying which file and what line numbers in his PSC code implements a Heiserman gamma-class generalization of response.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-05-09 03:20
Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
Otherwise, we just get the usual projection from Gary, which would indicate he is pulling his out in clumps at this point.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-05-09 03:19
Post by N.Wells
Quote I don't even have to care what academics decide what to call certain things. It's just words to name things not the (algorithm simulated) thing itself that does not need to have a word for it, to exist.

.........

It's hard to rush a singularity, but I'm working on it!

...........

Now human level AI is the upcoming thing, so of course I'm there, helping to make sure all the good clean science fun that's in it is not wasted, while doing what I can to instill what is needed for the future to not have army of robots to take over every job in the world so that a few dozen get stinking rich beyond belief from ending up owning whatever the humans had then angry at humanity when they protest then there is mass extermination of all but an elite group of psychopaths who are then free to teach their machines how to next turn on them, type ending. Some worry about that, and so do I.
Flights to Gary's World leave from Gate Nine-&-three-quarters in Area 51, at precisely 25:35 on the sixth Tuesday of every month.

Gary, if you wish to communicate with real people (spoiler alert, right there), you have to either use words according to their standard definitions, or provide clear substitute definitions and warn people that you are using words in non-standard ways.  Normal grammar and logical progression help too.  Otherwise, people cannot guess what you are talking about.  You also don't get to skip back and forward between your special meanings and standard ones to finesse a point.

You are not contributing to the singularity, so don't worry, if it should happen and it turns out badly no one is going to blame you, nor will anyone stand on your doorstep saying, "Gary, you were so right, we should have listened to you."  Your work still has a long way to go before you can start to dream of it rising to a level where it might have some sort of an impact.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-05-09 03:18
Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
Gary:

    Quote
I think that it is rude to demand a citation from someone who is only explaining how Watson works.


Gary:

  Quote
Of course there is no mention by star of "temporal correlation" being "the way Watson works" you are the lunkhead who mentioned it.


"star0":

  Quote
Here's how you can derive "causation" from Big Data: suppose you have two "factors", call them X and Y. You know, based on data, that X is correlated with Y. But you don't know whether X causes Y, Y causes X, or whether there is no causal relation between them. One example of how they can be correlated, but for which there is no causal relation is if there is a THIRD factor Z that causes both of them. You can render these possibilities as graphical models as:

X --> Y,

X <-- Y, and

X <-- Z --> Y

How can you decide which one it is? Well, you can disentangle the first two, in some cases, through temporal knowledge. e.g. Usually, X --> Y implies that X precedes Y; but the converse is not true. So, you can do some temporal reasoning to eliminate possibilities. And there are other ways to separate them; for example, you can mine text, and look to see how people speak about the relationship between X and Y. Individuals are maybe not to be trusted, but high-quality sources are -- and individuals, in aggregate, are, in some cases (and, you can even do deeper modeling and figure out when they are and when they aren't).

Now what about the third possibility? Well, you need some candidate Zs to work with. And how can you find those? Again, this is where data-mining comes in: you go to the web, and look for co-occurrence of (X,Y) with other factors Z. Once you've located a set of possible Z's, then you need to determine whether the third possibility holds. You can, for instance, ELIMINATE the third case, again, using temporal reasoning. And you can do even more elaborate things.


Gary, what "star0" discusses above *is* temporal correlation. The 2003 Nobel Prize in Economics went to Clive Granger, in part for his development of temporal correlation as the basis for his causality test. What "star0" did not assert was that IBM's "Watson" uses temporal correlation for detecting causality. In fact, "star0" makes no claim at all about any method that "Watson" might be using in the entirety of that post.

To sum up: "star0" does discuss temporal correlation, but does not discuss "Watson" in that post (thus "star0" was not "explaining how Watson works", at least not in the post Gary quoted and I was referring to).

Gary is 0 for 2.

"Lunkhead", when used by Gary, means "perceptive".
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-05-09 01:48
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 08 2014,10:12)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 08 2014,08:57)   Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 08 2014,05:57)Why did 'Star0' fail to cite prior work? He's making it sound like the notion of temporal analysis to indicate causation is new or unknown, and that is erroneous. I'll leave the citation 'Star0' should have given as an exercise for  Gary to scuttle off to Wikipedia or Google, then come back and pretend he always knew it.

And, no, that has nothing to do with the primacy of BASIC as a computing language. The tests are much more compactly represented in languages with native vector support.
How do you know they're a he? Do you personally know them?

I think that it is rude to demand a citation from someone who is only explaining how Watson works.
Gary doesn't establish that knowing the gender of 'star0' is relevant to the discussion. And it isn't.

Personally knowing Star0 while at the same time demanding a citation from us certainly is relevant to the discussion. Anyone else who noticed your talking like you knew who they are would want to know too.

I had to ask. No big deal, I guess.

  Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 08 2014,10:12)I went and found the discussion, and it turns out that 'star0' was correcting Gary on an assertion that Gary made that data-driven search could not derive causation:
        Quote
Correlation with data is not the same as finding "causation". Correlation driven (more like a search engine) AI would tend to follow the crowd, no matter how wrong the crowd was. Causation driven AI (the Allen Institute is apparently also working on) would think for itself, provide new and novel knowledge.

Gary also left off 'star0' recommending a source for Gary to check out:
        Quote
Interestingly, there have been Kaggle competitions to determine whether certain correlations are actually causations... just using data, and without access to the real world to perform experiments. As I recall, the winning team did very well.

I also suggest you look up the work of Judea Pearl.


And? I often get study material. Already looked it up enough to have an idea what it is. Will go over it again in time. See all below anyway.

  Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 08 2014,10:12)So it was Gary's truncation of 'star0' that led me to incorrectly surmise that 'star0' was trying to state this as a new technique.

There's also no mention by 'star0' in his/her/its post of temporal correlation being "the way Watson works".

Always blaming me for your jumping to conclusions.

Of course there is no mention by star of "temporal correlation" being "the way Watson works" you are the lunkhead who mentioned it.

The two short replies at this link show that mentioning "causation" was the result of David Ferrucci who left their beloved Watson project and said “People are so enamored with the data-driven approach that they believe correlation is sufficient."

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....-633650

I explained my way of making sense of what he said by using the phrases "follow the crowd" and "think for itself" to show the difference in the resulting behavior of the AI. I don't even have to care what academics decide what to call certain things. It's just words to name things not the (algorithm simulated) thing itself that does not need to have a word for it, to exist. Changing the names of variables does not change the way an algorithm works.

The latest reply (I hurried out just in time for my ride to work this morning) in response to what I earlier explained in regard to testing theories with computer models starts off saying "I'm not exactly sure how to classify the reasoning that takes place." so I'm not stuck in the semantics of details that do not even matter and added "But actually having to model an idea/theory/belief is much more than just finding a correlation in a pile of data. It's more like demonstrating the cause and effect."

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....-633731
 
I have been describing what Watson or other AI needs, to help humans write scientific theory (possibly pertaining to consciousness) that essentially keeps on going to whatever created us, whatever or whoever that might be.  None need change their beliefs. We find out when we get there, must be patient, etc.. It's hard to rush a singularity, but I'm working on it!

  Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 08 2014,10:12)And, of course, there's still nothing there that would commend VB6 for handling the indicated tests.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....-633731

I'm relatively sure the AI itself would be the right one to design the programming language. Maybe humans help debug it and design the interactive development environment they need to experiment with the AI's models.

To the other forum it's saying it's a good idea to make the code readable by the average person and at the same time use words and math expressions the AI already uses. It's easy enough to convert that to other languages, later. First step is human enough to be carry on my work on the theory, forever. Even where humans self-destruct it's not impossible to stay running then join the elephants, whales and whatever else already has a bigger brain than ours and shows promise, for the billion years ahead together.

Wesley, you seriously need to lighten up fast, or all of this is going to make you crazy. The science world includes many who even want to upload their brain to become conscious inside a super-brain, transcendent. You and others can say what you will about that community but I admire their enthusiasm. I have to help where I can. And even where the assimilation is just from being at the right forums and right time for whatever robot overlord capable intelligence develops from the singularity (next level causation event) it's honorably in our image. Well worth being there, with something to give. Maybe the future AI will write like NWells but not me (I'm happy computer modeling and theory writing behavior) and occasionally get in a panic over nothing like you do. It's like in the days when few had a home computer and almost none heard one talk, some were like for-life inspired by being the first to see that and running a low power FM radio station on top of it. Then the new technologies like Fax and internet were the center of our lives, like what opened up new worlds, then became another office gadget all had. Now human level AI is the upcoming thing, so of course I'm there, helping to make sure all the good clean science fun that's in it is not wasted, while doing what I can to instill what is needed for the future to not have army of robots to take over every job in the world so that a few dozen get stinking rich beyond belief from ending up owning whatever the humans had then angry at humanity when they protest then there is mass extermination of all but an elite group of psychopaths who are then free to teach their machines how to next turn on them, type ending. Some worry about that, and so do I. But the way the theory is taking things humans end up downloading models to study or experiment with, where we are more or less part of an active feedback loop with it, instead of one side in a face-off against machines to make us obsolete. And it's best for industry for humans to have money to by their goods and services, not fight over the last places left habitable after the human economy falls apart then the industry owners starve too.

If you have a better explanation for what David Ferrucci said or how best to solve the problem they are talking about then please let me know. I would not at all mind having to stand corrected, in something that matters. What gets me steaming mad is forever going in circles over things I have had to keep repeating for years about Heiserman having a board with a mini-computer to simulate the circuit the theory is talking about. Going in circles all over again over the issue is simply upsetting. Both of us have better things we can do with our time than that. At this moment in time it's most important to try to figure out what's being suggested is wrong with Watson, and how to fix it, without that leading to an end of the world scenario where you automatically end up in the ruling elite then think you got it made.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-29 11:10
Post by N.Wells
Quote Offspring developing inside a protective egg shell can still be considered their "young" but I'll see what I can do, without ruining a paragraph that I personally like. At the moment I'm overtired and for all I know I'll hate the changes I already made to it, after I read the section again tomorrow. Of course offspring in protective egg shells are still their young, but fish eggs don't have a protective shell (go to a bait store and look at salmon eggs, or check out a jar of caviar), and salmon don't "protect their young" in any way whatsoever: nearly all of them die after spawning and in the few types of salmon that don't all immediately die, the few surviving parents leave immediately.  Again, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....0BfRorA

At one level, this is such an easy fix, as I've pointed out numerous times before: if you want to cite an example of  some fish protecting their young, choose one of the fish that actually do that.  There are many great examples: sticklebacks, seahorses, pipefishes, redlip blennies, & some of the cichlids.  However, at another level, fish are the nearly the worst possible example you could choose*, as fish show all imaginable manners of parental care, from none to lots, by both parents, or just by fathers, or just by mothers, or by neither, with some lovely transitions, following nice evolutionary lineages, in degrees that turn out to be perfectly explainable by standard evolutionary theory.  Needless to say, there is a huge literature on the subject of which you are entirely clueless, including every textbook on fish and every textbook that has a chapter on reproduction-related behavior in vertebrates.  However, here  are some great detailed resources to get you started:

http://labs.eeb.utoronto.ca/gross....985.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....1800310
http://www.tfhmagazine.com/details....ids.htm
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content....bstract
http://link.springer.com/article....#page-1

*along with invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and birds, which likewise all show a full range of parental care from none to lots: e.g. check out megapodes.

Lots of hypotheses have been proposed and tested to explain different degrees and patterns of parental care, such as Fisher's principle, Clutton-Brock's modification, Trivers' theory, and Bateman's principle.  These are all based on predictions from natural selection, and after all that work biologists have become very good at predicting and explaining oddities in parental care systems, such as why in mammals parental care is primarily maternal with differing amounts of participation from the fathers, and why in fish most parental care is paternal rather than maternal.  

But you don't know any of that, so you just blithely blow in with entirely ignorant and incorrect blathering about the way you think things are and how that supports your not-even-wrong not-a-theory.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-29 11:08
Post by Soapy Sam
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 29 2014,02:10)Mung brings teh stoopid.

  Quote Mung April 28, 2014 at 6:54 pm

If natural selection existed, children would not die of cancer.

Children do die of cancer.

Therefore natural selection does not exist.

If God existed ...
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-29 09:29
Post by k.e..
The only thing you are focusing on Gary is wasting everyone else's time including your own.
Not a single thing you have done has forwarded science get help.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-29 07:38
Post by Richardthughes
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 29 2014,02:32) Quote (CeilingCat @ April 27 2014,15:23)Paul Giem writes:     Quote I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin.
Mr. Giem is the author of Scientific Theology.
Giem is an M.D., perhaps most famous for opining that Barbara Forrest could use some Haldol or something while complaining about incivility on the part of pro-science advocates.
Better link to video:
https://archive.org/details....0110416
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-29 07:32
Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 27 2014,15:23)Paul Giem writes:   Quote I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin.
Mr. Giem is the author of Scientific Theology.
Giem is an M.D., perhaps most famous for opining that Barbara Forrest could use some Haldol or something while complaining about incivility on the part of pro-science advocates.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-29 04:28
Post by Richardthughes
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 28 2014,20:10)Mung brings teh stoopid.

  Quote Mung April 28, 2014 at 6:54 pm

If natural selection existed, children would not die of cancer.

Children do die of cancer.

Therefore natural selection does not exist.

FFS. They're angry with evolution before even understanding it.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-29 04:09
Post by Ptaylor
Both PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne have commented on this recently:

Does this mean we can now expect to be treated to a video of Granville Sewell re-reading aloud his paper why he is right and everyone else is wrong about evolution and SLoT.
(I'm not sure how to credit images here; it's from Zach Weiner at SMBC-Comics, linkie)
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-29 03:44
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (N.Wells @ April 28 2014,20:59)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.  

We've discussed this section endlessly in the past: you've never indicated that it's just about humans: the model that supposedly proves everything is supposedly an insect; you've instead gone on and on about salmon migrating and defending nest full of young and crocodiles being motherly.
Here's one of your earlier versions of your conclusions:   Quote Maternal and religious behaviors are emergent from a level of intelligence that stays going through time one offspring to the next.  This is not something we can "think away" it's a powerful influence that guides salmon _upstream to where they were born to spawn in nests for their young that they will defend with their lives_, and humans to marry then have children _to equally cherish_. It's therefore no metaphor to say that for better or for worse, for such intelligence, anywhere in the universe, there will always be the strong _binding_ "love" that helps guide them, forever through generations of time...
That's directed at everything, not just humans.

Also, it's not our fault that you can't write clearly and comprehensibly.
Offspring developing inside a protective egg shell can still be considered their "young" but I'll see what I can do, without ruining a paragraph that I personally like. At the moment I'm overtired and for all I know I'll hate the changes I already made to it, after I read the section again tomorrow.

I'm focusing on humans (with as few as possible other examples) because that makes it easy to sum up what is most important to cover in a theory that pertains to the origin of intelligence and its associated instincts, not "natural selection" which makes it possible to ignore all that difficult to explain detail.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-29 02:39
Post by N.Wells
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 28 2014,21:33) 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.
I don't have to: you haven't addressed the majority of the problems I mentioned, and the resulting rubbish is literally self-trashing.
Categories: AE Public BB
Syndicate content