A milestone: there are now over 50,000 fans of NCSE's Facebook page. Why not join them, by visiting the page and becoming a fan by clicking on the "Like" box by NCSE's name?
Kenneth R. Miller
NCSE is pleased to congratulate Kenneth R. Miller, who will receive the University of Notre Dame's Laetare Medal for 2014.
Talking about the movies: Granville Sewel has yet another movie on his struggle with the 2LOT.
Quote they even make movies about it and movies are true
Has that guy seen History of the World, Part 1?
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 28 2014,19:48) Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Mar. 28 2014,19:32) Quote (NoName @ Mar. 28 2014,19:24)Still waiting for evidence.
Still waiting for something even remotely relevant to biology.
Or maybe even something not already known to be incorrect?
Something based in the real, natural world?
Free hint for the hard-of-thinking:
How well do you suppose your grid-based, all possible paths 'stored in memory', model will work in 3 dimensions? Say, when a fly is avoiding the swatter you keep futilely waving around. Hmmm?
Well, the "critter" in the program can virtually perceive all possible 2-D paths, so how hard could a virtual z-axis be? This is real-science, don't forget. GG's critter can probably walk though walls if one is block its path.
I would say grid "modules".
But that's for another model with this sort of thing in it.
Congratulations, after a gazillion pages you finally cited some evidence that grids and grid-based navigation are genuinely relevant to something biological (albeit not quite in the way you claimed). Was that so difficult?
More of that sort of thing and you might run the risk of doing some useful science.
Note that Stensola's paper got into Nature and will deservedly win plaudits for the authors, because in a concise and clear paper they have made significant advances to scientific knowledge. They've done this by going out of their way to document everything, to support and explain their reasoning, to ground-truth their ideas in as many ways as possible, to make claims that are based only on evidence at hand, and to avoid stepping very far ahead of their data, even though they clearly have larger questions in mind and suspicions about where future experiments are likely to lead them. They have a beautiful and logical sequence of experiments. Among their other virtues, they also write English very well, despite it not being their native language, they use "self-organizing" correctly, and they avoid blathering about fractals.
In contrast, your approach to knowledge has been more like Giordano Bruno's: mysticism, invention (not the good kind), and bald assertion based on the way you think things ought to be.
The contributions of Stensola et al. (and their immediate predecessors) now legitimize discussion about the obvious advantages of a self-location system that is based on a processing array that patterns or mimics reality, and how such a system might have developed.
In other words, you're as bad at history and historiography as you are at everything else.
No one here will be surprised.
I was hoping that this one from the DI EN&V thread would be the post of the week, by now.
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 23 2014,16:52) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 22 2014,14:38)There seems to be quite a number of people who joined the DI in criticizing how "Cosmos" included Giordano Bruno in their script.
Including several historians of science. Thorny C. has a guest post up about the problems with the cartoon, which makes the point that the Bruno story (like a lot of stories take from history) is being re-interpreted to fit into a
This betrays a mis-understanding of what the historians (at least) are complaining about:
Quote And that is an unseemly outcome of this entire flap. A man who was imprisoned, tortured, and ultimately executed for disagreeing with authority is being vilified all over again by people who appear to be desperate to excuse a particular instance of action of the Inquisition, all the while also stating their general rejection of the methods of the Inquisition. Unsatisfied with the physical demise of Bruno, they persist in attempting an intellectual assassination at this late date. Others who think that there is something worth telling about this bit of history are reviled for a lack of nuance, or that they are necessarily adopting an extreme stance that religion is always and everywhere in conflict with science. It seems to me that an obstinate refusal to acknowledge an episode of religious interference in the matters of scientific inquiry does no favors to those who would like to see some comity between religion and science.
If you want to actually know why historians of science are criticising Cosmos, Becky Higgett summarises the issues: turning history into parable "it doesn’t exactly sit well with claims to champion evidence-based knowledge". The historians of science I'm reading (the ones who actually study the period) are saying that what was done to Bruno wasn't "religious interference in the matters of scientific inquiry", for example
Quote But the truth is that Bruno's scientific theories weren't what got him killed. Sure, his refusal to recant his belief in a plurality of worlds contributed to his sentence. But it's important to note that the Catholic Church didn't even have an official position on the heliocentric universe in 1600, and support for it was not considered heresy during Bruno's trial.
On top of that, his support for Copernican cosmology was the least heretical position he propagated. His opinions on theology were far more pyrotechnic. For example, Bruno had the balls to suggest that Satan was destined to be saved and redeemed by God. He didn't think Jesus was the son of God, but rather “an unusually skilled magician.” He even publicly disputed Mary's virginity. The Church could let astronomical theories slide, but calling the Mother of God out on her sex life? There's no doubt that these were the ideas that landed Bruno on the stake.
From my research of the topic: Bruno was on a suicidal mission to use religion/philosophy to (what we now call) overthrow the government. He got Galileo involved in his personal feud by making it appear that their scientific work was part of a conspiracy to start a civil war. Hidebound university academics who hated Galileo (for such things as disagreeing with their Aristotelian curriculum) and wanted the pope to punish him did not help either.
If the pseudohistory/pseudoscience is good enough for an Atheist Convention then it's good enough for teaching to the US citizenry. But thankfully PBS did not get involved in this latest attempt to rewrite science history, to benefit a religion, and academics who benefit from the general public not knowing all that really happened.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 28 2014,20:48)...
But that's for another model with this sort of thing in it.
A turd in a punchbowl is another 'model' with this sort of thing in it.
It's 'bowl' Gary, not 'bowel'. While you may be comfortable throwing any old thing into the former, as you do your "model", your "model" nonetheless resembles the output of the latter.
Your "model" is entirely a fantasy -- is it a coincidence that games from the Avalon Hill battle games up through D&D and its many cousins and offspring all use a hex grid for mapping and movement? Or is it a tragedy that you floundered for months before 'discovering' the utility of hex grids for certain kinds of movement-based representations?
Yet in real life, Napoleon is not limited to one of six directions in which he can move either himself or his troops. Neither is the Lich of Haunted Hollow.
The stumbling block in both cases is that they do not map well onto 3D situations nor do they readily model 'grasp' or 'extended reach' scenarios. Nor do the persons or players have 'all possible paths' stored in memory. There would be huge performance problems with that -- an area you are doubtlessly familiar with, albeit in a slightly different context.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner in the Denser than Neutronium department.
Ed Kagin, co-founder of Camp Quest, passed away on March 27. :(
I will say absolutely nothing about all this!
Quote 9 Robert Byers March 28, 2014 at 8:05 pm
The bible is a witness in good standing until proven otherwise. Just like in court.
So the ark story is true. they even make movies about it and movies are true
they tell us otherwise there would not be the idea about movies documenting this or that cause or identity as a important thing.
If I had been aware of this fact I would have repented years before. On second thougt it may well be that Bob is just pissing off BA77.
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 28 2014,22:28) Quote (damitall @ Mar. 27 2014,10:20) Quote (Learned Hand @ Mar. 27 2014,17:06)Now you're just ducking the issue.
There's a joke in there somewhere about the bill, but I can't be bothered to think of it.
Somebody's quacking up?
(Or is that too Daffy?)
Ente gut, alles gut!
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 27 2014,18:31)Honestly, AI is for vacuum cleaners and Eliza chatbots.
Proving, as if more evidence were required, that you are entirely ignorant of every single aspect of AI and Cognitive Science. It is not that the statement is false, it is the clear implication that AI is only for those things.
Cognitive science from David Heiserman and Arnold Trehub (and others) for how the human brain works creates models that Planet Source Code rates as awesome and incredible.
And the dishonesty continues. All Planet Source Code is concerned about is the coding. In no way is there an interest or concern for the associated claims that happen to accompany the code.
Your greatest achievement to date is to demonstrate that even chronically stupid, ignorant, uninformed, and arrogant people can write code that someone (or even some five) will find acceptable..
Your claims to have based your "theory" and/or your software in the work of Trehub and Heiserman are questionable at best. We've been over all that before, repeatedly, and your claims have not come out well.
Further, to push your association with Heiserman's publications after claiming that AI is good only for vacuum cleaners and Eliza chatbots is hypocrisy on a grand scale.
If Heiserman's work is not AI, nothing is.
Quote What both describe for a circuit is contained in the Theory of Intelligent Design that further develops their time tested models and theory.
Bullshit. There is no circuit contained in your ridiculous "theory", or there wasn't in the last version [of the unversioned document that changes out from under reviewers] I reviewed. Nor has it been shown that your efforts have extended or developed anyone's models or theories.
We do, however, well recall that your usage of terminology from Cognitive Science cannot even be called idiosyncratic -- it is simply wrong.
Your "theory" is incoherent, self-contradictory, incapable of explaining vast swaths of behavior commonly taken to be intelligent, and would spoil even toilet paper were it printed on that medium. This has been established beyond dispute.
It is vastly amusing to see how, over the last tens of pages, you have dropped discussion of your "theory" to focus solely on your software. And now that your software has received the same sort of drubbing that your "theory" was subjected to, now suddenly the "theory" is back on the scene. Is it more a matter of fleeing your most recent disaster or a matter of switching contexts in hope that others have forgotten how thoroughly demolished your other output has been?
Neither your "theory" nor your software offers any value whatsoever save as a target for well-deserved ridicule.
Quote Molecular and cellular intelligence levels are simply the result of how biological systems ended up sorting themselves out. And it's outright scientifically unethical to change the results of many experiments that all together clearly indicate only one thing is even possible. Constant demands for more and more evidence brushes all that off, by suggesting I can change where the evidence has already led, as already well enough explained in the theory.
No one is asking for 'more' evidence -- we are asking for any evidence. To date, you have provided none.
The 'scientifically unethical' behavior is all yours Gary.
Among other things, you charge that others are "changing the results of many experiments that indicate only one thing is even possible." This is not only a flat-out lie when asserted by you against your opponents, it is a statement that is true in every respect when applied to your behavior and your work.
I've posted references to a number of sources that demonstrate conclusively that the "model" developed and used in your IDLab nonsense has no basis whatsoever in biological reality. You are ignoring the results of decades of research that all conclusively demonstrate that work such as yours has zero applicability to biological entities.
Intelligent creatures do not maintain grid-based maps of their milieu.
Intelligent creatures do not pre-calculate nor store in memory the complete set of "possible paths" available to them on a moment by moment basis.
Those two facts alone are sufficient to invalidate the entire sweep of claims you make for your software having any relevance to biology.
And you have the unmitigated gall to claim that we are the ones 'changing the results of 'many experiments'.
Worse, you are claiming that there are, in fact, 'many experiments' that show that "only one thing [presumably yours] is even possible".
I challenge you to provide even a single experiment that shows that. You claim 'many', I claim zero. It should be easy to defeat my claim -- you just have to provide a record of a single experiment that supports your claim.
Note, of course, that 'experiment' does not count the output of your software, for that has zero biological applicability nor do software outputs typically count as 'experiments' when there is no reality-grounded model in a reality-grounded context with a set of varying conditions which are shown to affect results in a manner consistent with real results in the target situation(s).
Your 'experiments' are as valid for determining how biological systems learn or behave as the aerodynamics of cloud particles in a pig-shaped cloud are for determining the existence of flying pigs.