AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: GaryGaulin

form_srcid: GaryGaulin

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.156.85.167

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is 54.156.85.167

form_author:

form_srcid: GaryGaulin

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'GaryGaulin%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2012/10/30 19:03:00, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Any scientific questions?
 
Quote
This origin of intelligence theory explains the emergent origin of biological diversity and complexity of life on Earth (and detection of these features elsewhere in our Universe) as a product of intelligence, which here self-assembles from nonrandom behavior of matter into multiple self-similar levels of a four requirement cognitive system that over time learns (no select/selected/selection generalizations) and can take a guess (not take a mutation) and physically develops over a lifetime that for molecular intelligence lasts at least billions of years (hence the word evolve became redundant). The theory's unambiguous logical construct allowed for an operational definition for biological species that builds upon the standard accepted operational definition for chemical species, used in chemistry. This unified entire sciences such as Cognitive Theory, Cell Theory, Genetic Theory and Physics Theory including concepts from String Theory. And one requirement of this inherently controlling cognitive mechanism is a confidence level we consciously feel, which is vital to account for, for the theory to also be useful to artists, musicians, clergy and all interested in better knowing who and what we are, how we were created, and by process known as "chromosomal speciation" are related to a progenitor couple hereby colloquially named "Chromosomal Adam and Eve".

Theory Of Intelligent Design - Download

Free Intelligence Design Lab:


http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1

Intelligence Design Lab with compiled code for Windows

Date: 2012/10/30 20:59:32, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 30 2012,20:40)
Gary, I saw this in a conversation you had online:

Quote

Control Of Krebs Cycle By Molecular Intelligence

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.



At any stage through the assembly cycle a molecule of proper fit may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby self-assembly interaction to where it fits. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.[11][12]

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it. A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.


Elsewhere, you've said that you are revising your text constantly. Is this the latest stable text that you have about the citric acid cycle?

Due to the extreme amount of work putting this theory together (and its politics) I only have time and resources for what most matters to science.  Here's my latest project:  

http://www.biology-online.org/biology....p146133

Date: 2012/10/31 00:21:07, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 30 2012,21:45)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 30 2012,20:59)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 30 2012,20:40)
Gary, I saw this in a conversation you had online:

   
Quote

Control Of Krebs Cycle By Molecular Intelligence

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.



At any stage through the assembly cycle a molecule of proper fit may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby self-assembly interaction to where it fits. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.[11][12]

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it. A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.


Elsewhere, you've said that you are revising your text constantly. Is this the latest stable text that you have about the citric acid cycle?

Due to the extreme amount of work putting this theory together (and its politics) I only have time and resources for what most matters to science.  Here's my latest project:  

http://www.biology-online.org/biology....p146133

That doesn't have anything to do with the citric acid cycle.

So let's put it another way: Is your statement that I quoted above about the citric acid cycle something that you feel is defensible? Or are you saying that it isn't, but you've been too busy to retract it?


There is some older material to elaborate on that here:

https://sites.google.com/site.......ull.doc

And I can add a paper under construction that might be helpful, for summing other things up:

https://sites.google.com/site.......fID.pdf


But I don’t see anything inherently wrong with what you quoted (other than not going into as much detail as is possible):

 
Quote
Citric acid cycle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......d_cycle

The citric acid cycle — also known as the tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA cycle), the Krebs cycle, or the Szent-Györgyi–Krebs cycle[1][2] — is a….


If you can show that it is wrong, then I would first have to blame it on Wikipedia, before agreeing that you are right. :D

From my experience though, they are used interchangeably, even though where I have to look for differences can say that the chemistry varies in a way that the forward/reverse TCA of origin of life papers is a more simple way of achieving the present day Citric Acid Cycle and Krebs.  They are otherwise the same to me.  But since what you are describing is more of a details thing that’s maybe more a mission for you to improve the wording of.  

Getting sidetracked on the Chromosome Illustrator project was the result of the paper also needing to better explain how “addressing” (as explained at Biology-Online) works, to make a molecular intelligence model relatively easy to program.  It’s one of the things that I do have to focus my attention on, because of it being needed by all experimenting with the computer model and theory.   But if you find a more precise way to word things then that will become the new priority and I will in minutes make the change so I can get back to work on what makes this theory unique, and scientifically valuable.

Date: 2012/10/31 00:30:35, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 30 2012,23:23)
Quote
requirement of this inherently controlling cognitive mechanism is a confidence level we consciously feel


Have you met timecube, Gary?

No, but String Theory works.  That's best explained in the .pdf version I'm working on:

https://sites.google.com/site....fID.pdf

Date: 2012/10/31 07:20:26, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 31 2012,02:19)
Great.  Now "Laddy GaGa", the same shithead who's been posting this brain smegma at TalkRational for the last few months has discovered ATBC.  Just fucking wonderful.

As I can see Occam's Aftershave rules here too.  Have fun trying to stop us, you easily yanked wayward science-stopper troll you..

The Gary GaGa sequence and all else in science are doing fine right now with establishing base4 ACGT (here first four must be alphabetical order) and base5 ACGTN (with N the fifth base for an unknown) so at least get that right thank you.

Date: 2012/10/31 07:57:27, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (fusilier @ Oct. 31 2012,06:57)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 30 2012,20:03)
Any scientific questions?
   
Quote
This origin of intelligence theory explains the emergent origin of biological diversity and complexity of life on Earth (and detection of these features elsewhere in our Universe) as a product of intelligence, which here self-assembles from nonrandom behavior of matter into multiple self-similar levels of a four requirement cognitive system that over time learns (no select/selected/selection generalizations) and can take a guess (not take a mutation) and physically develops over a lifetime that for molecular intelligence lasts at least billions of years (hence the word evolve became redundant). The theory's unambiguous logical construct allowed for an operational definition for biological species that builds upon the standard accepted operational definition for chemical species, used in chemistry. This unified entire sciences such as Cognitive Theory, Cell Theory, Genetic Theory and Physics Theory including concepts from String Theory. And one requirement of this inherently controlling cognitive mechanism is a confidence level we consciously feel, which is vital to account for, for the theory to also be useful to artists, musicians, clergy and all interested in better knowing who and what we are, how we were created, and by process known as "chromosomal speciation" are related to a progenitor couple hereby colloquially named "Chromosomal Adam and Eve".

Theory Of Intelligent Design - Download

Free Intelligence Design Lab:


http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1

Intelligence Design Lab with compiled code for Windows

Hi Gary S. Gaulin:

Have you ever had the balls to contact Sandy Moss at U. Massachussetts?  He's retired, now.

Trevor Robinson died of old age, so I know you'll never take your crap to him, now.

Or will you now reveal all those University Biologists who agree with your  ... stuff.

Hey, why haven't you incorporated winfield's <id> stuff, with Proof of Design being that you can add layers of toilet paper and finally keep a dropped egg from breaking.

(Yeah, there's a history.)

You find the same (but at human level complexity) cognitive model here:

http://people.umass.edu/trehub....b

The theory makes sure to well credit Arnold Trehub and his book that has been my most valuable guide through the neuron level cognitive science.  I computer modeled memory circuits from it and to spite its age is still holding up well in science.  It's still an excellent (but unfortunately under-appreciated) resource that as you can see U-Mass is helping to make sure is there for you to read.  

Along with all else I can't ask for much better than that, from a local academia that honestly has better things to do than join a crusade against what Arnold Trehub found true too, that the model in the Theory of Intelligent Design is much modeled from.

Date: 2012/10/31 08:06:35, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 31 2012,07:38)
I'd like to talk about
Quote
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.


But on your thread, not here.

I have something I'm already working to help get that started.  But first wanted to eliminate some of the quickly eliminated baggage that I thought best to leave behind in this one.

Date: 2012/10/31 08:34:00, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,07:08)
Just curious, but is this diagram supposed to mean anything?

The circuit is what Arnold Trehub and David Heiserman described, that when combined together makes a simple yet awesome system.

Date: 2012/10/31 08:52:53, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 31 2012,08:38)
Hey Gary this thread is not a place for you to shitpost.  You shitpost in The Gary Gaulin Thread.  Pretty please

What is wrong with  Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC in a topic about  Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC?

Date: 2012/10/31 10:23:11, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,07:10)
Any testable predictions for ID?

And have you verified all your thoughts on ID with JoeG?  Because, he'll ignore you if you're wrong about ID or he'll stalk you for two years and beat you up.

Not to condemn or anything but the way it works out this is for real providing an explaining for how “intelligent cause” works that you are either a part of helping to make happen or on the sidelines jeering with what amounts to philosophical easy ways out of having to yourself have to present better cognitive theory, than what was so far presented in the other thread here:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y211653

For more on my reasons why I have to see it that way is this from the How a Theory Works to explain your philosophical dilemma that has you on the other side of science by expecting useful theory to meet an untested philosophical conclusion that best describes what a hypothesis is for (true or false statement that goes one way or another from an experiment):

https://sites.google.com/site....rks.doc

Quote
Gary Gaulin, 2011
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS

Although there are many “proper definitions” the primary difference between a hypothesis (also stated as a "research question") and a theory is that a hypothesis is a testable true/false statement (or brief question) which might be only an untested educated guess.  For example the observation that water increases in density as it cools infers "Ice is denser than water." while scientific theory explains hydrogen bonds which make ice less dense than liquid water which in turn will "predict" that this intuitive hypothesis is false.

A theory is a coherent explanation of a phenomenon, and will contain a number of hypotheses all explained together. In origin of life (abiogenesis) theory are a number of hypotheses and possible "worlds" like RNA World, DNA World, Metabolic World and Protein World. A theory does not ask a true/false question then perform a quick experiment to see whether it holds true or not, theory explains how a phenomenon such as "abiogenesis" or "intelligent cause" works and cannot be answered with a question a theory predicts its answer.

HOW A SCIENTIFIC THEORY WORKS

A “scientific theory” is a coherent explanation of how a phenomenon works. For a theory to be coherent there must be experiments (computer model, observation) to test all conclusions.

The "premise" of a theory is a statement that in as few words as possible sums up the phenomenon to be explained.  Whatever else that is to be said must be made irrelevant otherwise it is too easy to allow rumor and misinterpretations to define a proposed theory instead of its premise.

This is the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design:

Source: Discovery Institute   http://www.discovery.org/csc....ons.php
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The phrase "intelligent cause" is the name of the phenomenon to be explained.  The text of the theory “defines” intelligent cause to be similar to "emergent" causation.  The mechanism producing this emergence must here be explained as an "intelligent" phenomenon for it to be a coherent theory, hence "intelligent cause".

In science something either exists or it does not.  The word “supernatural” has no meaning other than the “unknown” or “unexplained”.  Therefore no part of the premise or text of a theory may be given supernatural meaning, by anyone on any side of a controversy.

The word terminology used in each theory should reflect the areas of science of the phenomenon they cover, not each other.  As a result the Theory Of Intelligent Design is an “origin of life” theory that requires terminology found primarily in robotics and Artificial Intelligence and never once mentions or borrows from Evolutionary Theory.

Words may not be used synonymously with each other unless the premise or the text of the theory makes it clear that both words are interchangeable.  For example to falsely suggest that “intelligent cause” must be one of a number of deities explained in religious scriptures the word “cause” is often replaced using the word “agent” to produce the new phrase “intelligent agent” which can then be defined as they please to suit their argument.  The only scientific response is to state that the rules do not allow this here, therefore a scientific reply is impossible and cannot be given until they rephrase their statement using terminology found in its premise (or where applicable the text of the theory).

All theories are “tentative” therefore can never be “proven true” or can be a “fact”.  When tested a theory can only be “proven false” in which case it is incoherent, or again “holds true” in which case it remains a coherent theory.  As is the case of Superstring Theory it is coherent enough to be a viable and “useful” theory even though there are known to be incoherencies in areas that are still being researched.

Karl Popper is known for applying philosophy to science to argue against the prevailing views of the scientific method by advancing empirical “falsification”.  This made for a useful debate as to what science is.  But in reality, finding a rabbit fossil from the Cambrian era would certainly puzzle scientists but the genetic algorithm models would still work fine.  Therefore the “theory of evolution” would not be thrown right out of science just because of incoherence in a small part of the fossil record.  One has to “believe” that falsification was good enough, which is a judgment call that easily leads to endless unproductive argument that can slow down even stop a theory from being written when critics automatically refuse any falsification no matter how good it is. Though there are many ways to as per Karl Popper falsify the Theory Of Intelligent Design it would be beyond the purpose of this writing to present all of that here.

For a theory to be “useful” it must make “predictions”.  Otherwise it is “useless”.  There is no requirement there be a list of them included in the text of the theory.  But predictions should be included where they help explain what to look for in an experiment.

The scientific information is placed in a “logical construct” that provides a place for everything, to make it easy to put everything in its proper place.  For example in this theory each emergent level of organization has its own “section” each with four “subsections” which represent the four requirements for “intelligence” and the first requirement is “something to control” such as robot motors, biological body, or at the molecular scale controlling cellular functions

The second part of the premise that follows the comma "not an undirected process such as natural selection." describes what the theory does not explain as the cause.  We can here remove this part from the sentence leaving us only the part it does have to explain which is “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,”

To make it easier to gauge how closely the theory is following its premise the shortened sentence is completed by adding a short summation of what the theory can conclude pertaining to the phenomenon of intelligent cause.  When we are on the right track there is a complete sentence that makes more sense together. When we are on the wrong track the sentence makes less sense together.  In the case of a theory breaking a rule of science such as "...an intelligent cause that is supernatural therefore it cannot be tested" we can see right away that it is not a scientific theory, repeatable experiments to test the phenomenon must be possible from the explanation.

In a discipline such as science most are conditioned to do things one certain way using established theories.  This can make it appear that a new one is not needed.  It will then be ignored.  To help prevent this complacency the rules of science do not allow dismissing a theory based on what was previously said about it.  But at the time it does not always seem worth taking seriously.  When almost all are doing the same it appears to be impossible for all to be wrong.  Authors here work very hard and probably endure ridicule for their “unaccepted” theory to eventually become “accepted” which might not even be in their lifetime.

An existing theory is never evidence for or evidence against another.  Where each explain entirely different phenomenon it is possible for both to be coherent.


You now need to have a better explanation for how “intelligent cause” works that does better with computer programmers and others who know useful science when they see it too.  

The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too.  Better that than not having the support of computer programmers on up to the greatest of scientists who would be impressed by something coming out of all this, after all.  I'll next try to explain that part of it, but brings us to Kansas and Dover and is a many years long project I will do my best to sum up in a million words or less.

Date: 2012/10/31 14:51:59, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 31 2012,05:10)
Gary,
Wiki notes:
       
Quote
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it.


In your conclusion in the PDF (the Theory of ID) you linked to you say:
       
Quote
Rather than abiogenesis which is de?ned as biological life arising from inorganic matter this theory ?nds in favor of (intelligence from intelligence) biogenesis. The ?rst living thing might not even be quali?ed as a living thing using a metric that needs abiogenesis in its logical construct. Although both words reduce to the same event, biogenesis is here more precise


Did I miss the "verify" or "falsify" bit then?

The "falsify" bit wore itself out, but the "verify" part of a theory which comes before the conclusion (not where you were are supposed to begin) is vital and must explain a way for others to take it from there, as Charles Darin did by explaining his theory to others than was crapped on by Owens and most all other greatnesses of science of his day who tried to discredit him out of science therefore it took 30 years before the scientific community even cared about him or his theory.  Important thing is to find the people who actually need such a theory and are willing to help verify that it is indeed good science, because that is not a one person job and trying to make it seem that way is politics not science.

In this case what now stands to be verified by others and already did great so far, looks exactly like this:



http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1

What is explained above either makes sense to all in that field in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it.  But you have to empirically contradict ("falsify") it, not oblige me to an endless cycle that makes it seem I have to do that just because of something dug up in a conclusion that makes for a good semantics argument but ignores all the rest that is above it, that is already doing fine being fairly judged where it should be most useful and appreciated in reality if they did not like it too then the science theory part goes nowhere anywhere.  At PNAS or Nature where the audience is expecting lab experiments that produce supernatural deities and other nonsense the issue is not an original computer model that does in fact allow the experimentation with what scientifically qualifies as “intelligent cause” at a place where there is a large volume of physics and other science related programs written in Visual Basic, where it fits right in with all the rest that’s there to for-real keep how-to experimenters busy on things that have never been tried before.  That is what verifies the model and theory works for them too, and they sure don't mind the credit for being the birthplace of the theory that was supposed to have been impossible, that was actually long ago in embryonic stage right here with the Intelligence Generator:

http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1

Part of that is being “citizen science” that even residents of York/Dover who most hated ID helped put together, in their local media forum.

http://exchange.ydr.com/index.p....-online

I always included Kansas, where Kathy Martin has all long been having fun with science too with no need to worry about places like this forum.  There is no longer great need for her to make an issue of it at a board of education public hearing.  She only has to be kept informed and knows how well the theory is doing these days where it most matters, and I know she’s happy with how things are going (even though not even I can change where the scientific evidence leads).

http://www.kcfs.org/phpBB3.....1&t=758

To be religiously real (without going out of bounds of science) I made an illustration with famous artwork as a pointer:



From the “citizen” level the controversy is being quietly ended with the Theory of Intelligent Design winning, but not over Creationism or Creation Science that the above illustration is most properly for, which was a problem that got the Discovery Institute in what has been called a “turf-war” that made it unpopular with Creationists who need an honorable Adam and Eve established in science and Genesis friendliness or to them too it's just window dressing the Darwinian paradigm.  

This is the real thing, what science does allow, and Darwinian theory is not even supposed to be a cognitive theory to explain intelligence like this so can't explain it at all therefore this is no doubt the best explanation there is for all that.  Just have to accept, that at least for some of us, this is very serious science where ones who get all shook up over it are no surprise...

Date: 2012/10/31 16:16:02, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 31 2012,15:09)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,10:32)
Let's start small however.  Describe ID in your own words.

Words should be fine.  However:
 
Quote
The "falsify" bit wore itself out, but the "verify" part of a theory which comes before the conclusion (not where you were are supposed to begin) is vital and must explain a way for others to take it from there, as Charles Darin did by explaining his theory to others than was crapped on by Owens and most all other greatnesses of science of his day who tried to discredit him out of science therefore it took 30 years before the scientific community even cared about him or his theory.

It looks like sentences might be a problem.

I'm lost without the edit button to get the last minute typos that show up so well when seen on the screen.  And I'm known for big sentences that are a part from defensive action against quote-mining a single sentence that that needs others to make a complete thought, but I try not to go overboard.  Also can admit I have the writing skills needed for programming and forums but figuring out how to explain all this in a science paper gets complicated real fast.  Soon need to get back to the coding and other things that are behind schedule as a result.  But I would rather have something new online to experiment with that only needs to be properly coded and commented, than a small number of obsessed over pages of literary masterpiece explaining what we already have.  It's like I mentioned in the other thread, and hope it did not come out rude, that I have to stay focused on the science and not worry about the hundred or so years of work already on the back burner that I will no-way have all done by this weekend either.

Date: 2012/10/31 18:15:18, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 31 2012,14:56)
Without getting too verbose, how is intelligent learning different from evolution?

That's a good question and another way to describe it is "evolution" and all that Charles Darwin explained is that things change over time and where some things are made gone they're gone.  Might be insight to someone who didn't already know that, but it's not theory that predicts what this is for and makes one go Ah ha! and Eureka!


http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehl....ome.htm

The theory is for systems biology and predicts a system architecture of a molecular cognitive system at work in cells, to account for their being such a tenacious self-learning survivor.  From there it's connecting to origin of life on into String Theory, and other way on to cellular then human origins and intelligence all with the same simple core model where once you understand how it works you know why intelligence is something to respect because of its all controlling behavior and all else just something that happens because of the way it works.

Here's what it looks like when applied at the collective intelligence level in robots.  Note the way they describe how "guess" and such is used to produce new knowledge between them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....ByLkK14

So to an earlier good question from the other thread, yes it will clean your floors, if it wants to.  There are ways of making want a certain thing, but make it too smart and too clean it might figure out how to end that problem by getting rid of the humans making all the messes in the first place.  

You're probably safer with a non-intelligent AI with 2D math equation that covers the floor space and is programmed to stop for humans, as opposed to having to learn to do so by fighting with them enough times they leave you alone for a while.  This model very seriously has a mind of its own, that has to itself want to dance or it's not going to, which is very bad where it gets sensory overwhelmed then stage fright has it running away.  

This model ending up being normally unpredictable like this is one of the things that lets you know it's not Artificial Intelligence which is great at cleaning floors and dancing at the push of a button but it's not the real thing where there is very visibly a mind of its own that inherently tries to control all it can.  This will not obey commands, unless it wants to.  A buyer beware would certainly need to be included with that one.

Date: 2012/10/31 19:32:40, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,16:50)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 31 2012,16:16)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 31 2012,15:09)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,10:32)
Let's start small however.  Describe ID in your own words.

Words should be fine.  However:
     
Quote
The "falsify" bit wore itself out, but the "verify" part of a theory which comes before the conclusion (not where you were are supposed to begin) is vital and must explain a way for others to take it from there, as Charles Darin did by explaining his theory to others than was crapped on by Owens and most all other greatnesses of science of his day who tried to discredit him out of science therefore it took 30 years before the scientific community even cared about him or his theory.

It looks like sentences might be a problem.

I'm lost without the edit button to get the last minute typos that show up so well when seen on the screen.  And I'm known for big sentences that are a part from defensive action against quote-mining a single sentence that that needs others to make a complete thought, but I try not to go overboard.  Also can admit I have the writing skills needed for programming and forums but figuring out how to explain all this in a science paper gets complicated real fast.  Soon need to get back to the coding and other things that are behind schedule as a result.  But I would rather have something new online to experiment with that only needs to be properly coded and commented, than a small number of obsessed over pages of literary masterpiece explaining what we already have.  It's like I mentioned in the other thread, and hope it did not come out rude, that I have to stay focused on the science and not worry about the hundred or so years of work already on the back burner that I will no-way have all done by this weekend either.

Here's the thing.  If you can't explain it simply, then you either a) don't understand it well yourself or b) don't have the skills to get it into a science paper format.

There's nothing wrong with either of those.  But if you read the science journals, the prose is very, very simple.  Yes, the terminology is very complex, but the prose is simple.  

"We did x with y."  "We used x process to modify the gene Y."  etc.

Now, let's see if I can help.  DO you agree with or disagree with the following (and feel free to make comments).

1) The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

2) the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence

3) The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

4) Intelligent design (ID) is the empirically testable theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.

5) Intelligent design is a belief that the universe could not have been created by chance and that some higher-power must have had a hand in creating the universe.

With the understood caveat that some of the information in these definitions may be fundamentally wrong (i.e. 1 says that natural selection is an undirected process.  Depending on how one defines 'undirected' this may or may not be a true statement).

The premise, as stated by the Discovery Institute and now on the "public record" as one sentence only, is in my signature line.  All else you presented are rewordings that are irrelevant to discussion.

And it's not that I cannot easily enough write a paper like you are describing, the problem is it's a lot of theory and gets into what has been going in Dover and all over these days and all else I hate to even get into but is incomplete without.  It keeps forever changing never looking quite right, end up frustrated and just need to get away from it or will just get worse with more work.  But if you can fit all I have been saying and the rest of the theory in a journal length article then you or someone else can second coauthor it.  My problem is I'm me, not you, and the theory needs source code exchange not lab result research paper.  It's in a way a formality I am being dragged into because of some thinking my job too on top of all else that already publicly states Theory of Intelligent Design not allowed, that seriously makes me wonder whether a science journal paper is a waste of time to begin with right now.  Model and theory is already here.  And no science journal can change that fact.  So I'm honestly not sure what purpose you expect the publishing of the news in top journal will even serve.  It's too late for tribunal and don't need to show up for a journal inquisition, unless I want to, and at the moment I don't.

Date: 2012/10/31 20:03:09, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 31 2012,18:21)
Gary, you really need to focus on writing better. Keep your sentences shorter and less wandering.

Also

Quote
But you have to empirically contradict ("falsify") it, not oblige me to an endless cycle that makes it seem I have to do that


Actually, in science, the burden is on the guy with the new paradigm. He has to prove it's more useful than the old paradigm.

ID needs people (1)creating an actual model, (2)using it to generate specific predictions about the real world, (3)collecting data, (4) using the data to further refine the model.

Instead, it's stuck at step (0), which is having people clueless about biology babble on web sites. That's all its done for 20 years, and accomplished nothing, because it's just creationism, which is scientifically worthless.

I'll remember to keep the sentences small.  And all the other good advice.  At the moment though I'm fighting exhaustion.  My grammar then declines rapidly.  But it seems like you and others know that I'm making sense, and can relax for a while.  

The problem with a journal article is not knowing where to begin explaining all this there, or why.  But it's not like it's an impossible problem to solve.  It's just more frustrating than you can imagine.  At least the pdf shows where I'm currently at in that effort, to show some progress has been made.  It's not like I don't try, that's for sure.

Date: 2012/11/01 16:58:48, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 31 2012,22:13)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 31 2012,00:21)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 30 2012,21:45)
           
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 30 2012,20:59)
           
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 30 2012,20:40)
Gary, I saw this in a conversation you had online:

             
Quote

Control Of Krebs Cycle By Molecular Intelligence

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.



At any stage through the assembly cycle a molecule of proper fit may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby self-assembly interaction to where it fits. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.[11][12]

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it. A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.


Elsewhere, you've said that you are revising your text constantly. Is this the latest stable text that you have about the citric acid cycle?

Due to the extreme amount of work putting this theory together (and its politics) I only have time and resources for what most matters to science.  Here's my latest project:  

http://www.biology-online.org/biology....p146133

That doesn't have anything to do with the citric acid cycle.

So let's put it another way: Is your statement that I quoted above about the citric acid cycle something that you feel is defensible? Or are you saying that it isn't, but you've been too busy to retract it?


There is some older material to elaborate on that here:

https://sites.google.com/site.......ull.doc

And I can add a paper under construction that might be helpful, for summing other things up:

https://sites.google.com/site.......fID.pdf


But I don’t see anything inherently wrong with what you quoted (other than not going into as much detail as is possible):

           
Quote
Citric acid cycle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......d_cycle

The citric acid cycle — also known as the tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA cycle), the Krebs cycle, or the Szent-Györgyi–Krebs cycle[1][2] — is a….


If you can show that it is wrong, then I would first have to blame it on Wikipedia, before agreeing that you are right. :D

From my experience though, they are used interchangeably, even though where I have to look for differences can say that the chemistry varies in a way that the forward/reverse TCA of origin of life papers is a more simple way of achieving the present day Citric Acid Cycle and Krebs.  They are otherwise the same to me.  But since what you are describing is more of a details thing that’s maybe more a mission for you to improve the wording of.  

Getting sidetracked on the Chromosome Illustrator project was the result of the paper also needing to better explain how “addressing” (as explained at Biology-Online) works, to make a molecular intelligence model relatively easy to program.  It’s one of the things that I do have to focus my attention on, because of it being needed by all experimenting with the computer model and theory.   But if you find a more precise way to word things then that will become the new priority and I will in minutes make the change so I can get back to work on what makes this theory unique, and scientifically valuable.


You are using the citric acid cycle as an example confirming your concept of "molecular intelligence". If you don't have the biology right, though, it seems that the conclusion would be that "molecular intelligence" fits a counterfactual biology, not the actual biology that we see. I'm not a biochemist, and my biology coursework touching on intracellular processes lies decades in the past, but precious little that you described meshed with my recall.

As for establishing that your description of the citric acid cycle is incorrect, we can utilize your cited source, Wikipedia.

Gary:

       
Quote

It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.


Wikipedia:

       
Quote

The name of this metabolic pathway is derived from citric acid (a type of tricarboxylic acid) that is first consumed and then regenerated by this sequence of reactions to complete the cycle.


There aren't "two identical copies" produced.

Gary:

       
Quote

At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.


Wikipedia:

       
Quote

The reaction [Reverse citric acid cycle] is a possible candidate for prebiotic early-earth conditions and, so, is of interest in the research of the origin of life. It has been found that some of the steps can be catalysed by minerals.


The reference linked makes clear even in the abstract that they are talking about chemical reactions in the lab, not observations of in vitro biochemistry. ZnS catalysis is not what is happening in the bacteria.

Gary:

       
Quote

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it.


Wikipedia:

       
Quote

Products of the first turn of the cycle are: one GTP (or ATP), three NADH, one QH2, two CO2.
Because two acetyl-CoA molecules are produced from each glucose molecule, two cycles are required per glucose molecule. Therefore, at the end of two cycles, the products are: two GTP, six NADH, two QH2, and four CO2


The citric acid cycle does not produce cells.

Gary:

       
Quote

A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.


Wikipedia:

       
Quote

The regulation of the TCA cycle is largely determined by substrate availability and product inhibition.


I don't see any basis for your conclusion in what Wikipedia is saying. That lack of substrate or overabundance of products inhibits the citric acid cycle indicates that regulation doesn't require much in addition to those.

Gary:

       
Quote

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.


Mark Twain:

       
Quote

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.


All of that last bit quoted from you is speculation without the slightest grounding in empirical data.

As noted at the outset, you do not have the biology right concerning the citric acid cycle. You don't even get simple things right that Wikipedia gets right. Your use of a bizarre alternative citric acid cycle as a point of "verification" for your claims about "molecular intelligence" indicates that "molecular intelligence" is premised upon a biology that we know does not correspond to the terrestrial biology that we have on hand.

I can see a few scenarios following.

(1) Declare that you are actually describing the "real" citric acid cycle, never mind what Wikipedia and biologists have said, and that therefore no change in your concept of "molecular intelligence" is necessary. This leads others to further solidify a classification of you as a Timecube-like source of information.

(2) You alter your description of the citric acid cycle to come a little closer to actual observed biology but make no changes in your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads to others coming to a conclusion that either the example has no relevance to your concept (since such widely divergent descriptions of the example supposedly "verify" the same concept), or that the concept is detached from any empirical approach whatsoever.

(3) You excise the citric acid cycle as an example of "molecular intelligence" without altering your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads others to wonder why a supposed verification can be cut without consequence to the concept that supposedly was verified.

(4) You alter both your description of the citric acid cycle and your concept of "molecular intelligence" in such a way that the changes in the citric acid cycle description have clear correlated changes in the concept. This leads others to re-evaluate their initial assessments of your work.


What you found is described in this and similar origin of life articles and papers that are referenced from the theory:

 X.V. Zhang, S.P. Ellery, C.M. Friend, H.D. Holland, F.M. Michel, M.A.A. Schoonen, and S.T. Martin, "Photodriven Reduction and Oxidation Reactions on Colloidal Semiconductor Particles: Implications for Prebiotic Synthesis," Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry, 2006, 185, 301-311.
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/environ....007.pdf
 Xiang V. Zhang and, Scot T. Martin, “Driving Parts of Krebs Cycle in Reverse through Mineral Photochemistry”, Journal of the American Chemical Society 2006 128 (50), 16032-16033
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/environ....006.pdf
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin....03k.pdf
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/environ....emistry

There is more detail and this illustration in the full version of the theory:  


https://sites.google.com/site.......ull.doc

I can now see how quickly summing it up that way can cause confusion.  Looks like I better include more detail, and put the illustration back in.

In the opposite direction of the cycle there is of course disassembly, as opposed to assembly.  

Another that better shows how the reverse cycle makes a structurally mirror image molecule that next splits in half is here:


http://bitesizebio.com/article....now=off

The theory is correct in saying that this type of cycle is something that can be controlled, hence meets the first requirement of 4 that qualifies a system as intelligent.

Date: 2012/11/01 18:10:12, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,12:32)
So your saying that the philosophical underpinnings of science are all wrong?

Interesting that you are using a computer and probably wireless to communicate to me that science is all wrong.

Let's start small however.  Describe ID in your own words.

After having in more detail studied the recent (he died in 1994) philosophical work of Karl Popper it became clear that it was being scientifically misused.  In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny.  You believe that a theory can be falsified as easily as a hypothesis, but when reality of how things go in science is considered even your best falsification fails.

Science is all about experiments that explain how things work, not philosophy.

Date: 2012/11/01 19:08:17, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,18:10)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,12:32)
Let's start small however.  Describe ID in your own words.

And on that, I simply follow normal scientific procedure in regard to how a theory (such as String or ID) can beforehand be premised then all are invited to write a theory to explain how that works.  In this case "intelligent cause" must be explained, and what sums up to "Natural selection did it!" answers are not accepted.

Once you know how, it's possible to scientifically meet both requirements of the premise.  And the phrase "natural selection" is such a scientific generalization that once the model is molecularly "developing" into new morphological designs comparisons to Darwinian theory sound like arm-chair philosophers (who of course never wrote one) trying to figure out what a scientific theory is, using philosophy.  If you put a "hole" in the environment that some fall into and never get out of, then it's "natural selection" too.  Before long pointing and parroting the same two generalizations at everything becomes annoying.  Can then see why in this theory such attempts to better explain how intelligence works, are best ignored.

Date: 2012/11/01 19:13:56, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 01 2012,18:46)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,16:10)
Science is all about experiments that explain how things work, not philosophy.

"Sproing!" goes the irony meter.

Intelligence Design Lab:

http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....ngWId=1

You are free to experiment with it too.  But from what I can see you are not an experimenter, so oh well.

Date: 2012/11/01 19:50:05, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 01 2012,19:22)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,19:13)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 01 2012,18:46)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,16:10)
Science is all about experiments that explain how things work, not philosophy.

"Sproing!" goes the irony meter.

Intelligence Design Lab:

http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1

You are free to experiment with it too.  But from what I can see you are not an experimenter, so oh well.

Modeling does not equal experiment.

More modeling (from theory) in this case prebiotic water body systems:

http://originoflifeaquarium.blogspot.com/....pot.com

There are so many possible experiments for so many sciences your logic amounts to denial, but at least the rest of us are experimenting with the theory's models!

Date: 2012/11/02 00:57:47, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 01 2012,01:04)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 31 2012,20:03)
The problem with a journal article is not knowing where to begin explaining all this there, or why.
If so you better don't even think about it.
Science is not about having pompous ideas. It's about developing questions in form of hypothesis based on already known evidence. Some grain of intuition may be involved but a flash of genius is surely the exception rather than the rule Science amateurs like you are like born again christians, they can't understand why others don't see or rather feel and experience the obvious. And this high pitched emotional state surely is incompatible with science which often means hard work, frustration and loosing time with wrong ideas in the first place. Wrong ideas are not a problem and we may actually learn from them. However, I don't get the impression that you are willing to even admit that your ideas could be wrong. In addition, hypotheses have to be formulated in a way that they can be logically and emperically tested. Furthermore, they must be expressed in a comprehensible language. You clearly miss these points.

BTW, since I am convinced that you still belive you have something the world is waiting for and scientists should be interested in: Did you already identify a journal appropriate for your groundbreaking work? Due to the impact you assume I would suggest Nature or Science. You will find the relevant guidelines for authors here and here. I would appreciate if you could keep us updated on your publishing efforts and am especially interested in any response from editors and reviewers.

ETA: You may want to search Amazon for scientific writing.

The how to write a science paper websites were already helpful.  In my experience though, the definition of pompous became:  Needing one to crawl to self-appointed journal authority with public policy to immediately reject such theory, while their theory is already well enough presented at Planet Source Code and more.  

Giving into that does honestly set a bad example.  If this is their politics then it’s maybe best to leave them behind, like they asked for.  As it works out, scientists who most matter to the theory and I have no problem figuring out what it’s all about from what they find on Planet Source Code.  Ones who degrade that programming resource are more likely an administrator type or have (anti)religious reasons for demanding I report to a tribunal all set to brush it off for them.

I would seriously rather stay focused on following the evidence where it leads, than get stuck having to explain where we have already been which is more of a job for a gifted scribe.  These days in science papers they are given credit by becoming a coauthor but it is more or less the same thing as in ages past in the search for how we were created.  And by the way Kathy Martin and others worried about being lost, which is not religious until science is written down there too then passed along to future generations through culture and religion.  Respecting the past this way, makes the theory very faith-friendly and useful there.  And where the planet sizzles or has another ice-age that makes technology all gone it’s then only what religion can make sense of that easily carries on.  Not that I become a Jesus it’s actually here more from the emerging legend of Kathy Martin who to spite their religious way of seeing things prevailed, with help from a science guy who focused on the science work while explaining important connections that parallel religion that keeps the search for our Creator going for at least a few more hundred years hopefully forever.  Kathy is a Catholic, so where what she gave to her church for direction that kept it going to spite science change becomes legendary she eventually becomes a Saint.  I’m happy just getting credit as her science guy who helped light the path that she herself took, that won reelection after scientists vowed to make sure she's made gone ASAP.  In Islam one can achieve status as a Prophet behind Prophet Muhammad, and modern scribes there already know where the theory’s at too.

It might of course also be a big help to get something published in a major science journal, even though it’s now at most explaining what’s already here and I sure can’t afford the publishing fees so would have to claim poverty on that.  It’s like one thing adds to another then before you know it the science journalists are useless, but maybe wondering what’s wrong with the heads of scientists who well know what’s going on but just hurl insults and give pompous speeches on their behalf instead of giving me/us real help.  I still need to finish the OOL related Reverse Krebs Cycle illustration that needs molecules drawn to show how they split at the end of the cycle, and have to make a coacervate video and describe propulsion but can’t afford a microscope like that or am in a field that studies its ionics.  I’m simply so overwhelmed by what I need to finish for the theory that dumping all over me for being able to afford only time for that, looks plain scientifically dysfunctional.

Thankfully all is still well on Planet Source Code, where their creator sent best wishes to let me know I’m welcome to submit more like that, anytime.  They only care that the code is all there, like it was.  And I’m sure they don’t like being treated like a toilet either.  The new found scientific empowerment that makes even the greatest of science journals powerless against us is just one more of those things that gives others who are normally left out of the fun the thrill of having experienced real power to themselves change science.  The preferable outcome is here is that the ivory tower has to crawl to Planet Source Code for news of what’s new in science.  And with all considered there’s nothing unscientific or unfair about it.

Date: 2012/11/02 01:06:36, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
And oops, bad missing-word typo above. Should read:

"And by the way Kathy Martin and others worried about this being lost, which is not religious until science is written down there too then passed along to future generations through culture and religion."

In other words, it is scientifically irresponsible to kick science just because it's well received in religion too.

Date: 2012/11/02 02:41:07, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 01 2012,22:01)
Philosophical reading for Gary: Wilkins and Elsberry 2001

Other reading:

Information theory and "complex specified information"

Published article on evolving effective strategies for movement

William Dembski and the paper that used Avida are both trying to develop theory pertaining to intelligence by working in the opposite direction that I do.  The method thinks in terms of "agents".  Intelligence is somehow detected.  For what it's worth to help get something started, that's all fine by me.  And I hope this theory helps them discover something great from there, using their method.  William likes to explore the science meets religion, and for all we know he might find something interesting.  Science is much about putting yourself in the right place at the right time for discovery and reasons why you're there do not even matter.  After long search that goes nowhere the miracle cure ends up found in a dirty sink from common bread mold.  Only needed sloppy lab sterility procedures and to know what to look for, to make the "Eureka!" happen.

Intelligence theory on the scale of the Theory of Intelligent Design must first have the circuit and algorithm required to experiment with "intelligence" and (technology willing) "intelligent cause" events.  Need a single cognitive model that covers human intelligence, cellular intelligence, molecular intelligence, and is a bonus to next be in String Theory where William might do well in because of liking amazingly complicated math formulas that the rest of us would rather avoid.

Date: 2012/11/02 05:30:31, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 02 2012,04:37)
Gary, it's very tiring to try to figure out what your incoherent comments actually mean. I strongly suggest that you should greatly improve your communication efforts if you want to be understood.

Good idea!

The only thing I now need to know, is what you are having trouble understanding.  From what I can see I am talking about news and events that are now like ancient history.  So maybe this might help.  It has info on Kathy Martin, Jack Krebs from KCFS, and the ID mayhem that was going on in Kansas that made the theory national news:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet....er.html

Date: 2012/11/02 08:28:05, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
I first have to say that I had to walk to the store for coffee to keep me awake another 12 hours, so be glad I'm still here for you.  And as always, please don't mind the typos..

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,05:09)
Gary,
You said:
 
Quote
The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too.  


Could you explain what it is that JoeG is right about, and give a specific example where science has "gone his way"?

Could you explain what it is that Creationism is right about, and give a specific example where science has supported Creationism?

If you can't then please withdraw the claims.


I do not know enough about JoeG to be able to comment on their work.  But I did notice they kinda have their own thread in this forum too, and it's almost 2/3rd of the way to a million hits!

My ID experience long ago started at the KCFS forum where Jack Krebs taught me everything he knew about debating against the theory.  I myself said ID is not science it is a religion which at the time it more or less still was.  I knew the UD site did not have a science worthy theory yet, and drove some at the ARN forum nuts by being honest about their not having a theory together there either.  Along with Mike Gene who loved to find all the most recent recent info on metabolic pathways it was still an excellent learning experience to have been in on.

Since I did not see a Theory of Intelligent Design being possible I instead worked on original models and classroom experiments that were put together mostly at the KCFS forum.  There was also added inspiration by email from Kathy Martin who instead of being negative and hating the idea was encouraging my search for an easy kitchen/classroom experiment to help explain what was later found to be called "self-assembly".  We in turn ended up helping to introduce the concept of "self-assembly" to science teaching, by it being published in a National Science Teachers Association journal.  It might not be as good as the delivering of a science-worthy Theory of Intelligent Design, but was still not bad for amateurs.  At least there was that to show, as something good that came out of the rubble of the public hearing in Kansas that all fell apart on them.  They proved to be right about it being more constructive to call in both sides of the issue to discuss the scientific merit of such a theory.  Now there is Chromosomal Adam and Eve taking a respectable place in science.  Dust/clay is now vital to know about in origin of life.  Through emergence we express what created us, which we are systematically in the image/likeness of.  Theory can now read so much like Genesis I could go on and on about how things are for the most part working out well for what you would call "creationists".

Date: 2012/11/02 08:48:33, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 02 2012,07:44)
pssst gary make it interesting pls


Got speakers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....8Iumd2A

Date: 2012/11/02 12:21:09, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,08:55)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,08:28)


I do not know enough about JoeG to be able to comment on their work.


That's odd. I quoted you saying:
 
Quote
The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too.  


So you are able to comment on their "work" when it suits you, but when pressed you don't know what it is you are supporting.

Quality.
 
Quote
But I did notice they kinda have their own thread in this forum too, and it's almost 2/3rd of the way to a million hits!

I'm sorry, I missed the relevance of that to my question?
 
Quote
I knew the UD site did not have a science worthy theory yet, and drove some at the ARN forum nuts by being honest about their not having a theory together there either.


So you know that UD has no science worthy theory yet at the same time The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way ?

If they don't have a theory, how can the science be going their way?

 
Quote
Now there is Chromosomal Adam and Eve taking a respectable place in science.


You believe this somehow supports Creationism or Intelligent Design?

How? Be specific!
 
Quote
Dust/clay is now vital to know about in origin of life.

Except it's not in relation to ID, is it? I'm sure your deity could have made humans out of glass and peanuts had it so chose.
 
Quote
I could go on and on about how things are for the most part working out well for what you would call "creationists".


Then please do so, as that was in fact the question that I asked.

As yet you've given a few examples of what "creationists" like to use in support of their case but we both know that "Chromosomal Adam and Eve" have nothing to do with their Biblical namesakes, and that by "Dust/clay" you are referencing the biblical god.

If it turns out the origin of life depends on light (which of course it will at some level) then to you that'll be "proof" that the bible was right all along because it mentions the word "light".

So your evidence fades away like some much a thing that fades quickly.

To quickly sum up what is most important to myself and all others including JoeG (who I at least know is catching up to Kathy Martin's record amount of ridicule) here's more culture change for your speakers too:  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?N....LfE7K6Q

If you followed the link that was found in the UD thread to my long ago W I Don't Know experiment that left me well misunderstood, very afraid for the future, but I attended the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and got to know some in the "industry".  Then Radio Pirates were hip in radio and the Grunge movement needed scientific input so there I was writing what I could into that network, that was through fax machine due to PC's and internet not being around yet.  Years later, it's the same thing but all are older and wiser and the theory I was talking about with molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, and so forth, is coming of age thanks to the ID controversy.  

You can say what you want about the science in the theory not being a big deal scientifically anymore.  I already knew that.  Real scientific change that once we once could only dream about, is no longer something hoped for that might happen, it already did.  

I know what it's like to suffer for a theory like this.  And I knew that Kathy and others (who I did know well enough to be able to relate to their novel scientific problem) got into more than they thought and were shocked by the "scientists" boycotting the hearing.  Then came the gnawing question of why they just threw mud at it then ran.  But as it now stands, the computer model and theory that is at Planet Source Code is example of what happens when one doesn't run away like that.  The experience has even made the Kansas Public Schools ahead of the curve in self-assembly and more, that makes for model school material.  Not even Jack Krebs minds that happening, especially since there would not have been the KCFS forum without him and deserves credit for the good that ultimately came from his hard work too.  He also needed professor Joe Meert and others who helped keep it academic to stay in the battle after the hearing via the KCFS forum.  So with all said, none on the ground in Kansas wanted to be abandoned by scientists.  And in hindsight what Kathy and others in the "minority" were trying to describe that needed some patience to fully understand was not a good idea to abandon either.  Unless of course you don't mind doing what we want while Jack just gets nervous from all the IDeas I could not help but gave the other side.

Creationists in Kansas and elsewhere are likely a part of the reason the Genesis-friendly science that you consider no big deal scientifically is now understood as being no big deal anymore.  That's how the creationist strategy here works.  What works for them in the classroom is rightly made a non-issue by making sure it gets taught.  They themselves get to introduce it too or explain to teacher, not someone also representing the Atheist movement or other motivator to be one up on their competition in science that is not even in the classroom yet.  That's the kind of progress I see happening in Creationism country that I know, the kind that you can do nothing to stop.

Date: 2012/11/02 12:48:14, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 02 2012,12:31)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:21)
If you followed the link that was found in the UD thread to my long ago W I Don't Know experiment that left me well misunderstood, very afraid for the future, but I attended the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and got to know some in the "industry".  Then Radio Pirates were hip in radio and the Grunge movement needed scientific input so there I was writing what I could into that network, that was through fax machine due to PC's and internet not being around yet.  Years later, it's the same thing but all are older and wiser and the theory I was talking about with molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, and so forth, is coming of age thanks to the ID controversy.  

Gary,
Aside from the fact that you're an obvious crank, this bit from you demonstrates why no one knows what the hell you're talking about.  It makes no sense on any level. It's an incoherent mess. Until you can learn how to start at the beginning and work your way to the end by way of the middle, you're just throwing dung and wondering why no one smells the roses.

Quick question then.

Off the top of your head, what are the four requirements for a system to qualify as "intelligent" and two sources for more info on the cognitive model(s) it came from?

Date: 2012/11/02 13:03:48, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:32)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2012,12:05)
Thanks John. I kind of got that gist in general. I'm just saying that I have no ability to engage his ID arguments in specific because I'm exhausted by the time I get through any of them. Take this sentence:

   
Quote
In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny.

If you only want to engage what I said are worn out philosophical arguments instead of science then it's best that you do not ever expect that from me anyway.

Date: 2012/11/02 13:07:16, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 02 2012,13:00)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:48)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 02 2012,12:31)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:21)
If you followed the link that was found in the UD thread to my long ago W I Don't Know experiment that left me well misunderstood, very afraid for the future, but I attended the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and got to know some in the "industry".  Then Radio Pirates were hip in radio and the Grunge movement needed scientific input so there I was writing what I could into that network, that was through fax machine due to PC's and internet not being around yet.  Years later, it's the same thing but all are older and wiser and the theory I was talking about with molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, and so forth, is coming of age thanks to the ID controversy.  

Gary,
Aside from the fact that you're an obvious crank, this bit from you demonstrates why no one knows what the hell you're talking about.  It makes no sense on any level. It's an incoherent mess. Until you can learn how to start at the beginning and work your way to the end by way of the middle, you're just throwing dung and wondering why no one smells the roses.

Quick question then.

Off the top of your head, what are the four requirements for a system to qualify as "intelligent" and two sources for more info on the cognitive model(s) it came from?

Now I have no idea what your questions have to do with my observations, except perhaps to demonstrate that the problem is your apparent inability to maintain a linear discussion.

You did not study the theory, correct?

Date: 2012/11/02 13:13:05, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:32)
[quote=JohnW,Nov. 02 2012,12:05]  ..... Take this sentence:

 
Quote
In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny.


I'm ok all the way through "absurd". But the sentence keeps going and it's a quagmire. "...since even where confirmed..." (huh?) "...by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms..."(finding more EAs? I really don't think that's what you mean, but I'm not sure what you are really thinking here) "would still "evolve"..." (wait...what? Something's missing there. A thought? A word? A few words?) "...and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny." I don't even think he meant that last part the way he wrote it. I think he meant that more EAs would lead to articles and papers that scientifically explain the new found evidence, but it's hard for me to know.

Basically, after reading a few of his posts, I've given up any hope of actually discussing what Gary is trying to get across. But you all seem to be doing a fine job, so I'm just going to sit on the sidelines munching popcorn.

Hey, at least you quoted the whole sentence instead of taking the juiciest part to munch on all by itself.  In my book, that's progress too, even where it looks like a mess to you.

Date: 2012/11/02 13:16:22, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Oh and just add a comma after "more" if you want:

In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more, Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny.

Date: 2012/11/02 13:21:31, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 02 2012,13:15)
Let's try this:

Gary here are some questions could you answer them with simply yes/no.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between:

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence
2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature
3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

Let's see what happens...

You must first operationally define "intelligently designed" and how that can be different from "designed by nature" because otherwise you have only presented a false dichotomy.

Date: 2012/11/02 13:35:00, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 02 2012,13:23)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,13:21)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 02 2012,13:15)
Let's try this:

Gary here are some questions could you answer them with simply yes/no.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between:

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence
2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature
3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

Let's see what happens...

You must first operationally define "intelligently designed" and how that can be different from "designed by nature" because otherwise you have only presented a false dichotomy.

So have have an ID advocate asking us to define ID?

Burden of something falls on the someone?

I here have to ask you, because the theory I write/represent has no such dichotomy.  It's like me asking you whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity.  Your next likely reaction would be to wonder what the heck motivated me ask a question like that.

Date: 2012/11/02 13:55:42, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,13:34)
Yeah Gary. What Robin said. Lie down, get some sleep and then come back and write a paragraph or two instead of a wall of text.

I agree that's good advice, but I'm still on standby for possible a call from work to fix a machine and still have plenty of coffee left after buying a new can this morning.  I'm more worried about the tired to giddiness Bung-holio stage, that goes way past typos and long read.  That's when you realize that I do not mix well with philosophy, and maybe best to not get me started in that direction.

Date: 2012/11/02 14:28:36, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,13:41)
Quote
I here have to ask you, because the theory I write/represent has no such dichotomy.  


Perhaps if you answered the questions anyway, and explained why that is as you go along that would help.
Quote
It's like me asking you whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity.

Except the difference is that we can go and learn about EMP and electricity from someone else other then you.

You are the only person who knows about your theory.
Quote
Your next likely reaction would be to wonder what the heck motivated me ask a question like that.

In fact my next reaction is to wonder why someone who is trying to sell their theory would not take a moment to address a sincere set of questions that are obviously designed to elicit something of relevance.

The fact that from your lofty viewpoint these questions are like asking whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity is beside the point. It's your theory, so deign to descend and explain it even if it's in the context of a set of questions that make no sense when considered from the framework of your theory.

If you can't make the person asking the questions believe that those questions do not make sense if they understand then theory by explaining the theory to them in that context then you don't even have something that you understand yourself.

We're still making good progress.  They were good questions to ask.  I was at least quickly able to give a short answer, then the replies that came back made it easier to elaborate.

From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework where there is no natural/supernatural dichotomy that makes the questions the same as asking whether you can tell the difference between apples and apples.  That is why I am now trying to explain what I right away saw.  Once you can look at it that way, you'll know what I'm talking about.  

I'll try to think of another way to explain it.  But the simple answer is that the way the science works out the intelligent designer also exists 24/7 in nature (especially through molecular intelligence) and all over the universe, not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.  

As in any scientific theory, something either exists or it does not.  Same here.  But that might at first seem impossible, I guess.

Date: 2012/11/02 15:46:08, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,14:41)
Actually you had me at
 
Quote
From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework

as of course there has never been such a thing.
 
Quote
not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.  

This is all fine. Convince me.

To show that this is just something new to you, but not everyone else everywhere, here's a topic of mine from Tue Apr 08, 2008 titled "I seriously think I found the Design Theory" that got the theory project started:

http://www.kcfs.org/phpBB3.....1&t=839

There are a number of topics after that where with the help of scientists who could of course not resist teasing it even though they knew it only made the theory harder to get rid of by doing so.  It kept improving with time while traveling through a very good number of forums.  Years later I'm here, with what it became because of having a framework that works great with the peer-review process all are used to.  I often compared it to a peer-review inference engine, where scientists line up their replies that can't help but make the theory even better because of what they contain for information, that only needs proper digesting into new knowledge from the old.

Seeing the theory slowly reveal itself was quite a thrill for those who were fully in on it.  In my opinion, that's what most convinces a scientist that it's the real thing.  Doesn't need God in the gaps arguments to support itself, at all.  In fact, that's what makes it scientifically unstoppable.  Worse you can do to it, is help make it stronger.

Date: 2012/11/02 16:00:48, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 02 2012,15:39)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2012,14:46)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:28)
 

As in any scientific theory, something either exists or it does not.  Same here.  But that might at first seem impossible, I guess.

Gary, it would save everyone, including yourself, a lot of aggravation if you just told us what your fucking theory is.

Or you could continue with your "It's far too complicated, and you're not smart enough to understand my genius" line.  In that case you might want to consider finding another forum: one more suitable to such a superintelligent, martyred prophet-without-honour.

Have you contacted Vox Day?

My Theory

I loved the "Rise of the Guardians" trailer that it had for advertisement!    

Yes this is going to be epic!  And saying "no music" is only asking for more.  But that's my radio and broadcasting school experience talking, of course.

Date: 2012/11/02 16:51:41, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (damitall @ Nov. 02 2012,16:02)
Can you give us the name of one- just one - scientist who is convinced that your theory is "the real thing"?

Then perhaps he or she could explain it to us, because you fucking well can't

You are saying that you need a scientist to help you figure out what is at Planet Source Code and for download at theoryofid.blogspot.com?

Date: 2012/11/02 17:07:09, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2012,16:09)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,13:46)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,14:41)
Actually you had me at
   
Quote
From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework

as of course there has never been such a thing.
   
Quote
not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.  

This is all fine. Convince me.

To show that this is just something new to you, but not everyone else everywhere, here's a topic of mine from Tue Apr 08, 2008 titled "I seriously think I found the Design Theory" that got the theory project started:

http://www.kcfs.org/phpBB3.....1&t=839

There are a number of topics after that where with the help of scientists who could of course not resist teasing it even though they knew it only made the theory harder to get rid of by doing so.  It kept improving with time while traveling through a very good number of forums.  Years later I'm here, with what it became because of having a framework that works great with the peer-review process all are used to.  I often compared it to a peer-review inference engine, where scientists line up their replies that can't help but make the theory even better because of what they contain for information, that only needs proper digesting into new knowledge from the old.

Seeing the theory slowly reveal itself was quite a thrill for those who were fully in on it.  In my opinion, that's what most convinces a scientist that it's the real thing.  Doesn't need God in the gaps arguments to support itself, at all.  In fact, that's what makes it scientifically unstoppable.  Worse you can do to it, is help make it stronger.

Quoted from the link, because it looks like this is as good as we're going to get:

Quote
Darwinian processes were never intended to explain everything, because some things happen as fast as the self-assembly of 6 sided snowflakes from a blizzarding storm cloud to the self-assembly of ATP synthase and flagellum. They are designs that exist in the behavior of atoms that when brought together form these designs. Can visualize them as always being there. Are expressed when conditions are there for it to be. In living things, that is determined by coded DNA templates that catalyze the production of proteins that from there self-assemble into possible designs.

The genetic code is the long-term memory of a self-perpetuating metabolic cycle that goes one cycle per reproduction. This mechanism allows one small step at a time building upon a previous design, as in evidence in the fossil record where never once was there not a design present for the new design to have come from. Design does not have to become more complex or be more advantageous to survival because the organism itself is in part intelligently and consciously directing their change in design by what it finds desirable in the variety available to select as a mate. Examples include the peacocks tail. In humans the looks of "sex symbols" sometimes computer enhanced to represent the conscious ideals not yet common in our morphology.

So it's a combination of "Everything looks designed to me" and "Organisms intelligently control their own evolution".

The first part looks suspiciously like a non-falsifiable statement of faith.  

As for the second part: if only we could find a non-sexually-reproducing, unintelligent organism...

Did you even study the theory yet?

http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/....pot.com

Only reason I know for genuinely coming up with a statement like that, is cherry picking quotes to take out of context in order to try quickly brushing-off the theory.

That is clearly not what I said, and I don't have a hundred years to spoon feed ones who can't handle what is now K-12 level science.

Date: 2012/11/02 17:13:42, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 02 2012,15:34)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:28)
We're still making good progress.  They were good questions to ask.  I was at least quickly able to give a short answer, then the replies that came back made it easier to elaborate.

From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework where there is no natural/supernatural dichotomy that makes the questions the same as asking whether you can tell the difference between apples and apples.  That is why I am now trying to explain what I right away saw.  Once you can look at it that way, you'll know what I'm talking about.  

I'll try to think of another way to explain it.  But the simple answer is that the way the science works out the intelligent designer also exists 24/7 in nature (especially through molecular intelligence) and all over the universe, not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.  

As in any scientific theory, something either exists or it does not.  Same here.  But that might at first seem impossible, I guess.

So, is that a "pantheism" answer, or a "miracles happen all the time" answer, or a "God is a tinkerer" answer, or a "front-loading" answer? Or an "invisible holograms" answer?

Or an "I'm being deliberately obtuse because my theory is as insubstantial as a bird fart" answer?

The way what science works out, Gary? Where's the equation that points to the designer? You know, like:

E=mc2+YHWH

???

Date: 2012/11/02 17:18:38, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
And in case the last link did not work on your PC here is the same with less resolution:

Date: 2012/11/02 17:37:58, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 02 2012,17:26)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,17:18)
And in case the last link did not work on your PC here is the same with less resolution:

<snip>

Actually, it has exactly the same resolution (dots per inch) as in this case the resolution is a property of the display you are using to view the image.  It may, however, have a lower image quality than before, depending upon how much additional compression you used for the second image.  But being a coder you'd know all about that.

Yes, and after clicking to the reply to see how it looks outside the preview window the full resolution png file was not there anymore.  It came back though, after posting the jpg.  Now I'm stuck with two, but at least none should have a problem finding the math/logic that was demanded to be presented here.

Date: 2012/11/02 17:50:00, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2012,17:41)
I've never seen a Theory Of Everything which includes the word "nose" before.

Hopefully that indicates the terminology used is not over your head.  I kept it simple, because I could.

Date: 2012/11/03 07:18:57, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 01 2012,21:35)

You have confused yourself. Let's review your statement:      
Quote

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.



I did not realize I still had one floating around from way back in 2009.  But I think you might have found a special one.  Let me check..

Yes!  It's the ID-free Origin Of Intelligent Life blog, for Christmas! that I made for Jack Krebs and others at the KCFS forum who hate ID.  The title “Origin Of Intelligent Life” was a good clue it is not the “Theory of Intelligent Design”.  

With this illustration there too it's clearly visually showing what I am explaining.  At most missing the symbiosis part about the forward cycle gaining energy by undoing the assembly work of the reverse Krebs that can then assemble more:

     
Quote
Control Of Krebs Cycle By Molecular Intelligence

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.



At any stage through the assembly cycle a molecule of proper fit may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby self-assembly interaction to where it fits. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.[11][12]

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it. A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.


No versions mention citric acid cycle.  I make sure (Jack) Krebs is there, like he should be.  But since you do not believe that it is important to first study the theory you are supposed to be fairly judging it is no wonder I'm stuck in another henpecking semantics argument and this even though there was also a link to view in Google-Viewer at the Theory of ID download address:

     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 01 2012,21:35)
Oh, yeah, you will also not find me opening up a Word document from some random guy on the Internet. Not going to happen, not without booting a Live CD of a Linux distribution or something of the sort. And I see no reason to go to the trouble of doing that.


I must say, that at least your timing goes perfect with the link to the movie trailer for the new Christmas movie.   Here I am trying to explain Heiserman, Trebub, and others known all over intelligence related sciences.  It’s very basic material, not PhD level stuff.  It’s already a damn shame in the first place that someone promoting themselves as an expert in how intelligence works does not even know modern day basics kids know about too these days because of resources like BEAM (Biology, Electronics, Aesthetics, Mechanics) where David Heiserman and others are found.  And considering you are supposed to know all about what’s going on, not knowing who I am does not score any points in the science arena either.  And resorting to intellectual snobbery was a dumb idea.  But picking the ID-free chewtoy was in my opinion brilliant!

Under your scientific leadership, the kids of the world were at least immediately in danger of being scientifically bored to death.  I do though take the years old topics that linger in the forums as more evidence that the ID controversy actually ended around 2009.  With the theory working out scientifically there was no need for political protest, had science work instead.  Kathy had to make sure teachers in her district knew about the self-assembly demonstration via copy-machine, while kept things interesting at the KCFS forum for more original ideas for science teachers, that came from the wreckage of the hearing that went bad for them.  It’s hard not to be impressed.  And where students soon giggle because you can’t figure out what they already know, it’s a compliment to whoever could have them understanding all that by high school, and the students too of course.

At least (quality over quantity) Jack has no need to envy all the traffic this forum received over the years.  Or worry all that much about ones most ahead right now in understanding the theory include Kansan creationists that he was on a mission to scientifically educate, somehow.   Having the whole “Theory of Intelligent Design” pop out of the incubator is now just indication of unimaginable success.  Not that the ID-free “Origin of Intelligent Life” wasn’t also a great idea and novel Christmas gift, for a science forum that normally gets nothing for Christmas at all.  I'm at least thrilled to see that you had no problem finding it either.

Date: 2012/11/03 08:46:57, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 03 2012,04:35)
Gary sweetie, you know that you would really go a long way if you just ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS regarding your uh.. ehm.. theory/programme/hypothesis/thing.

Sorry for insisting but the answers to the questions will give all of us here some very good insight into what it is you are going on about.

So here they are again, so you don't have to go searching for them.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between (answer yes/no):

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence
2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature
3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

If your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing is unable to detect difference then obviously your answer is "no" and you can add, if you want, an explanation.  But as I said before, a yes/no answer will suffice for now.

I'm sure you have made these distinctions in your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing or it would sign positive inference in anything and everything.

Ah one last thing if you wish to define terms such as "intelligent design" and "designed by nature" please feel free to do so. Just so you know if you use the above two as synonyms them you have a serious problem and we know where to start in addressing it.

Also it would also be really dandy if you could answer Wesley R. Elsberry and oldmanintheskydidntdoit.

The best I can do is say that if the intelligence is not the source of what you qualified as "random" then answer to one is yes.

Number 2 and 3 are still as ambiguous.  End up reading:  

2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by an apple
3) a sequence designed by apple and a sequence that is apple designed

Without further information, it's nonsense to the theory.  The problem is in expecting scientific yes/no answers to questions that likely assume there is no intelligence in nature yet intelligence exists naturally, so right away there are paradoxes that only help show why ID arguments like this are inherently nonsensical to even ask.  And I'm honestly not trying to be evasive.  The logic of the theory requires unambiguous yes/no questions to answer, not generalizations from philosophy like "nature" and "designed by nature".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......osophy)

Philosophy is not science.  Therefore the second two are not even scientific questions, they are philosophical questions.  At their core, are questions that begin here, which do agree with theory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....S5IrO0I

Date: 2012/11/03 09:05:10, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
It's a great time for this required (for some) study video, that should be easy for all to get through too:

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 03 2012,08:11)
What is this guy on about? I literally have no idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....GA_rIls

Date: 2012/11/03 10:06:33, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 03 2012,09:10)
this is all about surfing?  that actually makes more sense than it being about science....

You are now in the middle of a culture war that is older than the Discovery Institute and expected to go on forever, and in any hands the Theory of Intelligent Design is one of those things that accidentally lights fuses of one kind or another, wherever it goes.  Already had enough wreckage to clean up.  Some here seriously need immediate music appreciation lessons, real bad.

In the Sheryl Crow Soak Up The Sun song/video the main message is to LIGHTEN UP!!!  Especially when I'm still the king of me, you have a fancy ride, but baby I'm the one who has the key.

In this more intense one, what do you see happening in the (commercial free) Muse - Uprising video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....mps-Sog

Date: 2012/11/03 13:25:27, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 03 2012,07:44)
 
Quote
With the theory working out scientifically


For example?

For that example we must begin with the Kansas Board Of Education public hearing for the Theory of Intelligent Design as was also reported by PBS after the Discovery Institute followed official procedure to make a change in a few sentences, that did not change much but it's a "foot in the door" all took very seriously.  Their paperwork was all there, so the next step is to have an open to the public (I think they all are public anyway) hearing to explain it to everyone, then decision is later made whether to accept or reject the proposed changes.

The "majority" side of board wanted to not take it seriously.  The "minority" side much included Kathy.  She and others saw no harm in having the DI come to Kansas to personally answer all the questions the people she was elected to serve had for them and "scientists" who said something else about the theory at the center of the controversy.  The question was whether the theory needing state standards changes had any scientific merit/usefulness in the Kansas Public School science classrooms.  It was obvious that the theory was controversial but the way US education laws and ethics are concerned the taxpayer (in class represented by students teachers are paid to serve) must have the final say in whether it is science or not.

In this rare case "scientists" are legally and ethically way over the line by trying to circumvent that process.  Same goes for the Discovery Institute that gets equal time to answer questions from the public.

The boycott by "scientists" left the public hearing unresolved.  The KCFS forum became where the public issue went after that to hopefully be resolved through there instead.  It took years to get this far.  In hindsight Kathy and others who expected a "fair-hearing" for the theory can easily accept that it could not be decided right there.  We all needed patience to resolve this one, and by my later giving the theory a fair hearing at the KCFS forum, regardless of it making Jack and others nervous by giving the other side so many ideas and such that way.

It's still as bad now as it was way back then to try deciding this one for Kansas public school system.  Get back for a message the Metallica - King Nothing song, from signals you're trying to interfering.  I make sure that I don't expect public school taxpayers to treat me any differently.  I just put what I have on the proverbial table to be fairly judged, then hope it's liked.  I stayed out of trouble that way.

What "scientists" think of the theory, is here genuinely irrelevant.  And there is nothing wrong with that, science likes it messy anyway.  So the way the science game is played with this one, how well the theory is working out scientifically is up to the public school taxpayers to decide.  Neither student or teacher needs a special board hearing or permission to bring to class something they can find on Planet Source Code these days.  Don't need a journal tribunal just students and teachers who like it, and teachers do.  One of the best compliments used "jam packed" to describe it.  The theory has a little bit of everything, but not so much that it's beyond a good K-12 education level.  That's what's important, and why it's doing very well in science via science classroom and how-to community that loves that sort of model/theory too.

Date: 2012/11/03 14:44:38, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 03 2012,10:13)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,06:46)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 03 2012,04:35)
Gary sweetie, you know that you would really go a long way if you just ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS regarding your uh.. ehm.. theory/programme/hypothesis/thing.

Sorry for insisting but the answers to the questions will give all of us here some very good insight into what it is you are going on about.

So here they are again, so you don't have to go searching for them.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between (answer yes/no):

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence
2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature
3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

If your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing is unable to detect difference then obviously your answer is "no" and you can add, if you want, an explanation.  But as I said before, a yes/no answer will suffice for now.

I'm sure you have made these distinctions in your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing or it would sign positive inference in anything and everything.

Ah one last thing if you wish to define terms such as "intelligent design" and "designed by nature" please feel free to do so. Just so you know if you use the above two as synonyms them you have a serious problem and we know where to start in addressing it.

Also it would also be really dandy if you could answer Wesley R. Elsberry and oldmanintheskydidntdoit.

The best I can do is say that if the intelligence is not the source of what you qualified as "random" then answer to one is yes.

Number 2 and 3 are still as ambiguous.  End up reading:  

2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by an apple
3) a sequence designed by apple and a sequence that is apple designed

Without further information, it's nonsense to the theory.  The problem is in expecting scientific yes/no answers to questions that likely assume there is no intelligence in nature yet intelligence exists naturally, so right away there are paradoxes that only help show why ID arguments like this are inherently nonsensical to even ask.  And I'm honestly not trying to be evasive.  The logic of the theory requires unambiguous yes/no questions to answer, not generalizations from philosophy like "nature" and "designed by nature".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......osophy)

Philosophy is not science.  Therefore the second two are not even scientific questions, they are philosophical questions.  At their core, are questions that begin here, which do agree with theory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....S5IrO0I

Gary, one of the main arguments for "ID" is the alleged presence and scientific measurability of "CSI", "FSCI", "dFSCI", and/or "dFSCI/O" in things in nature. Therefor, questions about alleged "CSI", "FSCI", "dFSCI", and/or "dFSCI/O" should be considered scientific by you and all other ID proponents.

So, can and will you measure the alleged CSI, FSCI, dFSCI, or dFSCI/O in a banana, a frog, and a rock and show your calculations?

The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them.  There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method.  For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces.  I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work.  Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found.  There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet.  I would not rule it out though.

Date: 2012/11/03 15:08:54, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 03 2012,13:32)
Try and focus Gary.

I had no problem noticing that you have no coherent explanation at all for the phenomenon of "intelligent cause" and are mucking up the playing field spitting out sour grapes all over it.  You did not even figure out that I put "scientists" in quotes that scare you (like I did board "minority" and "majority") because that is the given name for the team that you think you're helping, by fumbling.

Date: 2012/11/03 15:22:47, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....pYxkU-U

Date: 2012/11/03 16:11:42, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 03 2012,15:36)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,15:44)
The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them.  There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method.  For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces.  I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work.  Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found.  There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet.  I would not rule it out though.

This is just straight up gibberish.

Gary we have no idea what you are trying to say. The only thing you've said that is remotely coherent is that you seem to think the Kansas BoE wanting to put creationism in the schools means that ID is 'working out scientifically'. If that's what you think, you're out to lunch, man.

You are now talking about separation of church and state, that was successfully used in Dover.  What got the Discovery Institute there, was not having a theory with experiments/demonstrations that explain a mechanism for Intelligent Cause.  

For your plan to work as a counter-tactic you here have to in court show that the Intelligence Design Lab and its documentation is from religious scripture instead of from Heiserman, Trehub, and other researchers and research that is linked to from the theory.  By the time the judge finishes reading it, they will be wondering how any sane person would even want to try stopping public schools from teaching science.

Date: 2012/11/03 16:48:36, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 03 2012,14:59)
Gary:
Quote
One of the best compliments used "jam packed" to describe it.


Original quote (probably):

Quote
Dude, this whole website is jam-packed top to bottom with bullshit phrases and gobbledegook, what the hell are you on? Get help.

At the time it all still fit as a single opening post for a topic.  The exact phrase became "Jam packed-post".  Here's the link:  

http://www.teacherfocus.com/science....st42841

Date: 2012/11/03 17:36:57, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 03 2012,17:02)
 
Quote
For your plan to work as a counter-tactic you here have to in court show that the Intelligence Design Lab and its documentation is from religious scripture instead of from Heiserman, Trehub, and other researchers and research that is linked to from the theory.  By the time the judge finishes reading it, they will be wondering how any sane person would even want to try stopping public schools from teaching science.


It's already happened. You lot lost. Get over it already!

If/when it comes to court again, guess what. You'll lose again! And again!

Oh, and the Dover, PA ruling by Judge Jones was only against the actions of their school board (that read a statement against another theory in classrooms and had creationism books in school library) not against the "Theory of Intelligent Design".   As long as the teachers stick to the science that is in the theory it is legal to teach in any US public school district, including Dover's.  Some states even enacted bills to protect teachers from being harassed for (within bounds of science) teaching it.  Hence this makes sense: Jimmy Eat World - My Best Theory

Date: 2012/11/03 17:55:50, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 03 2012,17:40)
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 03 2012,14:16)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 03 2012,11:02)
If this guy starts ending his comments with "I love it so" and asking about my frugivorous predilections, it would clarify things, I think.

I actually was reminded a bit of JAD, the way he's focused on Jack Krebs for instance.

btw, you know he kicked the bucket, right?

Who exactly?

Date: 2012/11/03 18:57:19, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 03 2012,17:39)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,17:11)
For your plan to work as a counter-tactic

I don't have a plan. I have no idea what you're talking about and nobody else does either. We've had lots of creationists here, but you're the first where we literally can't make out what you're trying to communicate.

I didn't intend to suggest that you had some diabolical plan or anything.  You mentioned a possible strategy against the theory, that I needed to explain by going over the most likely outcome of trying it for real.  Proposing the strategy made you the (for sake of discussion) opponent against mine.

My being the first creationist you can't make out (what I'm trying to communicate) is probably because I'm not your usual creationist.  In fact, at one time I would have been insulted to be called that.  But after having been at the same time complimented (not out to fleece the flock) I accepted the new stereotype that fate had given me.

Date: 2012/11/03 19:05:25, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 03 2012,18:24)
Thanks to google docs, linky I just read his entire manifesto. 40+ pages. It was pretty boring. There were a few choice bits:

Quote
One example of when things go wrong is occasionally reported by ranchers who have a problem
with a wild moose that thinks they are a cow, or at least would rather prefer to be with a herd
where they don’t belong. This identity crisis might be further complicated by loneliness and being
safer in a herd with other animals, so even where the moose knows they are somewhat different
a lonely moose may still prefer company of cows. Regardless of their reasons for changing specie
identity, keeping such a giant easily angered animal out of the herd where they think they belong
is not easy. Where left to roam with the cows the moose cannot parent any calves, which helps
explain why there are not many moose with such a serious species self-recognition problem. Cows
who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose
because they cannot see the difference either.


but in general just kind of pointless and boring. And I don't think English is his first language.

Synopsis:

Take a bunch of Origin of Life, Geochem 101,  genetics 101 pop sci books and splice excerpts together. Add 10 pages of explanation and code about how to run a computer model simulation he has of a very simple bug. This section kind of ends with no explanation of the point of any of it. Claims that anything that has anything analogous to a memory of a previous state and exhibits stimulus response behavior, with occasional 'guesses' thrown in, is intelligent. Thus, chemical cycles, cells, multicellular creatures, and humans all exhibit intelligence.

There's no theory of intelligent design here. He just kind of claims that anything that acts interesting or complicated Is intelligent. That's it. The whole thing just kind of stops with no conclusion, no wrap-up, nothing. Gary's got no theory, not even an argument at all as far as I can tell.

It sounds like you are saying I need to make the punch-lines show up better, and use more expression.  Is this sentence better?

Cows who know a moose when they see one, will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose, because they cannot see the difference either!

Date: 2012/11/04 02:15:54, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 04 2012,00:31)
Gary, I guess the ID-friendly journal Bio-Complexity will appreciate your work. Here are its editorial policies:    
Quote
Purpose

BIO-Complexity is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a unique goal. It aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life. Because questions having to do with the role and origin of information in living systems are at the heart of the scientific controversy over ID, these topics—viewed from all angles and perspectives—are central to the journal's scope.

To achieve its aim, BIO-Complexity is founded on the principle of critical exchange that makes science work.  Specifically, the journal enlists editors and reviewers with scientific expertise in relevant fields who hold a wide range of views on the merit of ID, but who agree on the importance of science for resolving controversies of this kind. Our editors use expert peer review, guided by their own judgement, to decide whether submitted work merits consideration and critique. BIO-Complexity aims not merely to publish work that meets this standard, but also to provide expert critical commentary on it.

Scope

BIO-Complexity publishes studies in all areas of science with clear relevance to its aim, including work focusing on the relative merit of any of the principal alternatives to ID (neo-Darwinism, self-organization, evolutionary developmental biology, etc.).  Among the topics of interest are: the origin or characterization of complex biological sequences, structures, forms, functions and processes; pre-biotic chemistry and the origin of life; molecular or morphologic phylogenies and phylogenetic methods; new molecular or morphologic data including paleontological data; cladistics and systematics; biomimetic or engineering analyses of biological systems; in vitro and laboratory evolution; evolutionary simulation and computational evolution. Theoretical or mathematical treatments of complexity or information with clear relevance to the journal's aims are also welcome.

Although philosophical works will not be included as Research Articles, the subject matter does call for occasional articles of a more reflective nature.  These will typically be invited contributions from authors whose opinions are judged to be of broad interest, which will be published as Critical Reviews.  BIO-Complexity will consider for publication only work that adheres to widely accepted modes of scientific investigation and inference.

I talked to Matti.  The theory is way too long for an article or paper.  Like Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein and all the rest, it needs to be published in book form.  That's when I started on the most recent text (TheoryOfID.doc) which is now 50+ pages long.  After adding in the remaining illustrations that it needs (including a new fwd/reverse Krebs to show molecular mirroring) the shortest possible length is around 70 pages.

BioComplexity is good for short presentations like this one for "The Lignin Enigma":

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs.........2012.3

My problem still boils down to this theory being a 1000 times more challenging than a research type paper, article or review.  

Charles Darwin had it easy.  He only had to explain a cursory observation that indicated living things changed over time.  In my case I needed a cognitive model to explain how intelligence and intelligent cause works at emergent  levels into (at least) the molecular.  The computer model part alone required many thousands of hours of experimentation and coding, on top of all else that had to (for the first time) be figured out then explained in a way that it can next be experimented with by others (i.e. online at Planet Source Code too).

Date: 2012/11/04 06:05:07, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 04 2012,03:02)
Did Dr. Leisola suggest that your stuff would be too long for a Bio-Complexity article or is this your impression?
Isn't it possible to summerize it?  Actually, Darwin did the same. Hewrote a short summary when he was informed that Wallace had come to the same conclusions independently.
In addition, 70 pages of a word document will reduce to much less when printed in a journal. Thus, you opus would be shorter than Albert Einstein's Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie is long (53 pages) which was still published in a journal (Annalen der Physik. 49, 1916, 769–822).

Matti said quote: "After looking your text I feel that it is more suitable as a book, since it attempts to cover so much ground."

The latest attempt to be within journal limits was the pdf with PNAS template:

https://sites.google.com/site.......fID.pdf

Considering the number of sections that need to be added (Speciation, Cambrian Explosion, 4 levels of intelligence, computer model instructions/documentation and in-color circuit schematics, etc.) I would be lucky to fit 1/3 of it.

Have to also consider the public policy of all the top journals.  The paper must be immediately rejected/deleted upon reading the title.  Writing it could very well be just another huge waste of time.

Date: 2012/11/04 17:23:16, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 04 2012,12:52)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 04 2012,13:21)
Not working, Gary. You can't even write coherent sentences. Who's going to try to wade through 50+ pages of gibberish? It's not that your ideas are too advanced or complex. It's that you can't get to the fucking point, already.

After I read his 40-something page version I went back and scanned the whole thing because I literally couldn't find an argument for ID.

If anybody reads it and finds an actual argument, please let me know, because I'm mystified. Gary doesn't seem to actually have an argument for ID, yet he believes he does, and believes it's compelling. WTF?

If cognitive/physics/biological/chemical models and experiments are not allowed in your science then I need you to explain what you (and others here) were expecting a scientific theory to present as "an argument for ID".

Date: 2012/11/04 17:49:56, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 02 2012,06:33)
Hey joey, shouldn't you be telling your fellow IDiot jonathan mclatchie that "ID is OK with common descent"?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-buy-it


Yes, ID is OK with common descent:

http://www.discovery.org/csc........ons.php

Casey Luskin's video (that explains what the theory is and is not) is here:

http://www.discovery.org/v....7......7....7

Date: 2012/11/04 18:31:10, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 04 2012,18:14)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,18:23)
If cognitive/physics/biological/chemical models and experiments are not allowed in your science then I need you to explain what you (and others here) were expecting a scientific theory to present as "an argument for ID".

Obviously such models are allowed because that's where you got your details from. But your models don't feature an actual, you know, *designer* anywhere, Gary, or what the designer did, how it did it, when it was done, etc.

Or in other words, your hypocritical scientific requirements demand that I pull Jesus from a hat.

Get into that, get into that.

Date: 2012/11/04 18:53:45, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 04 2012,18:40)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,19:31)

Your reading comprehension is weak. Neither I nor anyone else here requires any such thing. What we need from you is a model that includes a designer, and some details about how to distinguish designed crap from naturally occurring undesigned crap.

Or in other words, the show must go on!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....Med0s6E

Date: 2012/11/04 20:11:48, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 04 2012,19:28)
   
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 04 2012,19:40)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,19:31)

Your reading comprehension is weak. Neither I nor anyone else here requires any such thing. What we need from you is a model that includes a designer, and some details about how to distinguish designed crap from naturally occurring undesigned crap.

or, you know, provide a description of a mechanism which makes useful predictions.

so far, you have provided flowcharts, "i dun wunned an award therefore ID", culture war Dover, culture war Kansas, irrelevant horsepifflery and several thousand words of text which are functionally indistinguishable from randomly generated bafflegab.

don't get me wrong buddy, i love laughing my tits off at this sort of thing.  it's just that if you are really serious about this bullshit* then you really suck at it

*yeah right i call Loki

Or in other non-words:



If this is not scientific enough for you then it's not my fault that through those who live for scientific discovery like this the theory is already all set to revolutionize science, while your fate is to laugh until you cry, then you die, then you die (of old age).  

 
Quote
The computer model also provides a precise, testable and scientifically useful operational definition for "intelligent cause" where each of the three emergent levels can be individually modeled, with a model predicted to be possible that generates an intelligent causation event, now goal of further research and challenge for all.

http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1


Hopefully you were already taught the concept where ones with entirely religious or political motives just die-off with time, while through those who only cared about the science the theory forever remains undefeated...  

Date: 2012/11/04 22:38:11, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)
Gary,

Why are you arguing with us about what science is?


So that lurkers know why you have none to offer.

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)
Why don't you just provide the evidence that a designer exists?


Already did.  

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)
Why don't you actually talk about the mistakes in your understanding of science?


Such as?

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)
Why don't you provide us with all the things that ID absolutely must be able to do (i.e. a testable prediction, evidence for the designer, a statement about who the designer is, and most importantly, how you tell designed stuff from non-designed stuff)?

Tell you what, let's do a simple little test.  I'll provide two gene sequences, one of which we know was designed, because I a human designed it.  The other is a sequence created from random numbers.  Then you can use your notions (whatever they are) to tell us which is designed and which is not designed.

Any interest in that?


I no interest at all, in playing the usual dizzying head-games.  But since you want to play, then here are two strings.  One was taken from a Fasta file for an actual organism (you would say product of unintelligent random mutation) and the other I myself designed (not a product of unintelligent random mutation):

1) GGATGAGA

2) AAAAAAAAAA

Which of the two is a product of what you call "random mutation" and which is not (because I myself just made it up and whatever)?

Date: 2012/11/04 23:20:51, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 04 2012,21:56)
Gary, did you ever send your stuff to other IDists beside Matti Leisola? If so how did Behe, Dembski, and the guys from the Biologic Institute, the Evolutionary Informatics Lab and the Discovery Institute react? IIRC, UD regulars run a private discussion forum. If you discussed your stuff there or if you had other opportunities to discuss it with JohnnyB, JowG or KairosFocus what did they say?

I never posted anything at UD.  But I correspond with Caroline Crocker and have been keeping the Discovery Institute's communication director Robert Crowther informed of major developments so that they are not blindsided by the theory, and know what to prepare for.  Reaction can be summed up as:  From what I had that of course still needed work there were no complaints from anyone in the ID camp.

Date: 2012/11/05 00:24:27, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 04 2012,22:29)
Okay, GG, you invented a... um... let's be polite and call it a unique way of modelling life.


Excellent!  Now you're better seeing the source of the soothing light at the end of your tunnel.

   
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 04 2012,22:29)
As the giant kid in "Food of the Gods" said, "What's it all for?"

Seriously, dude. Now you've got this giant flowchart, what are you going to do with it?

Besides wallpaper your bedroom (alternating with your big-whoop, programmer-of-the-minute badge), I mean.

As it stands, it's about as useful as the Greek tragedy of Aether and Phlogiston.


The flowchart(s) are now onboard the theory, to help give it extra momentum.  

But pssst.  All of your Darwinian Evolutionary Algorithms are about to get squished by progress.  And I think William Dembski et al are going to love seeing Avida get bashed to pieces too, not that it was not once (in the past) the state of the art for modelling life.

Date: 2012/11/05 01:30:12, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 05 2012,01:21)
 
Quote
All of your Darwinian Evolutionary Algorithms are about to get squished by progress.


Ah, yes. "Evolution is on its last legs."  Classic.

The operative phrase is "Evolutionary Algorithms."

Your attention to detail is fast asleep.

Date: 2012/11/05 02:23:21, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 05 2012,00:53)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)
Why don't you provide us with all the things that ID absolutely must be able to do (i.e. a testable prediction, evidence for the designer, a statement about who the designer is, and most importantly, how you tell designed stuff from non-designed stuff)?

Tell you what, let's do a simple little test.  I'll provide two gene sequences, one of which we know was designed, because a human designed it.  The other is a sequence created from random numbers.  Then you can use your notions (whatever they are) to tell us which is designed and which is not designed.

Any interest in that?

Tried that, got the following crytpic message back.
   
Quote

"The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them.  There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method.  For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces.  I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work.  Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found.  There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet.  I would not rule it out though."


...our lab is currently trying to find design in the statement above, but at the moment we are pretty sure there isn't any.

I'll bet you said roughly the same thing about the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design.  Only thing needed to make a big mistake like that, is to rely on mainstream science media for all your news of what's going on in science.

The paragraph you are having trouble with is simply a pragmatic way saying that I'm not sure how CSI and such fits into this theory.  But there's a good hint where that could very well be, staring right back at us here:

 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,22:38)
....here are two strings.  One was taken from a Fasta file for an actual organism (you would say product of unintelligent random mutation) and the other I myself designed (not a product of unintelligent random mutation):

1) GGATGAGA

2) AAAAAAAAAA

Which of the two is a product of what you call "random mutation" and which is not (because I myself just made it up and whatever)?


I purposely made it very simple to spot which one has almost no chance at all of being the product of randomness.  I'm sure (hint, hint) Guenter Albrecht-Buehler would easily figure it out.

Date: 2012/11/05 03:03:46, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 04 2012,23:40)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,22:38)

   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)
Tell you what, let's do a simple little test.  I'll provide two gene sequences, one of which we know was designed, because I a human designed it.  The other is a sequence created from random numbers.  Then you can use your notions (whatever they are) to tell us which is designed and which is not designed.

Any interest in that?


I no interest at all, in playing the usual dizzying head-games.  But since you want to play, then here are two strings.  One was taken from a Fasta file for an actual organism (you would say product of unintelligent random mutation) and the other I myself designed (not a product of unintelligent random mutation):

1) GGATGAGA

2) AAAAAAAAAA

Which of the two is a product of what you call "random mutation" and which is not (because I myself just made it up and whatever)?

Analogy: When people ask "how do you distinguish between a Designed sequence and an un-Designed sequence", they're asking for a general solution to the three-body problem. When you reply can't you tell the difference between GGATGAGA and AAAAAAAAAA, you're just providing a Lagrange point—a single, solitary, specific answer, as opposed to the general solution that's being asked for.
Let's see if Laddie GaGa gets the point of the above paragraph…

Your paragraph indicates that you way overcomplicated a simple problem that is easily solved by high school level math, or simple common sense.

Date: 2012/11/05 03:39:01, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 05 2012,01:07)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,23:20)
 
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 04 2012,21:56)
Gary, did you ever send your stuff to other IDists beside Matti Leisola? If so how did Behe, Dembski, and the guys from the Biologic Institute, the Evolutionary Informatics Lab and the Discovery Institute react? IIRC, UD regulars run a private discussion forum. If you discussed your stuff there or if you had other opportunities to discuss it with JohnnyB, JowG or KairosFocus what did they say?

I never posted anything at UD.  But I correspond with Caroline Crocker and have been keeping the Discovery Institute's communication director Robert Crowther informed of major developments so that they are not blindsided by the theory, and know what to prepare for.  Reaction can be summed up as:  From what I had that of course still needed work there were no complaints from anyone in the ID camp.

Well, no complaints surely is not the same as being endorsed and supported.

Due to circumstances that are beyond my ability to change it's still best that it is not endorsed and supported by the Discovery Institute and others who are automatically dismissed as crackpots anyway.  Like any large scientific project there are also dueling egos, and in a way I'm just one more.  Even the DI has to be careful not to start a feud between us, which they get stuck in the middle of.    It's best that I develop my own niche that others in the movement have little problem adapting to.

Date: 2012/11/05 04:49:03, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 05 2012,03:04)
All your algorithm are belong to us.

Yes, science belongs to everyone.

But since this theory was nurtured by Kansas educators, Dover are residents, news/entertainment media, artists, scientists and more, due credit must be given or else all hell will soon enough break loose around those who enabled that to happen.  If it's impossible to reference a place like Planet Source Code then we the taxpayers who support big-science will have little problem shutting down the intellectual snobbery via the NSF-OIG and such.

You are free to experiment with the theory too.  Only have to remember to give credit were due and you're all set for the future.  And I genuinely wish you luck, especially since your grammar is as good as mine when I get overtired.

Date: 2012/11/05 05:08:32, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 05 2012,04:25)
No need GG, you're in a niche of your own.

That's true.  All indications are that ones in the ID movement who studied it know it's a good thing.  But the theory covers so much science and requires some programming skills resulting in a steep learning curve, for some.

I can also say that it's no different from my attitude towards science journals with a public policy to discriminate against the theory that they are now powerless against.  What anyone even the DI thinks about it, is irrelevant.  But I don't want to be a creep about it and would rather all learn to love the change it's bringing, to more than just science.

Date: 2012/11/05 05:34:24, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 05 2012,04:26)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,02:23)
I purposely made it very simple to spot which one has almost no chance at all of being the product of randomness.  I'm sure (hint, hint) Guenter Albrecht-Buehler would easily figure it out.

Are you in contact with Dr. Buehler-Albrecht? Doesn't he assume evolution created what he thinks is cell intelligence?

Yes, on occasion I email them.  I now need to let them know about the new chromosome banding program they helped inspire.  

Guenter used to have a disclaimer on the website to let everyone know they are NOT a fan of the Discovery Institute, or have a problem with evolutionary theory.  Their need for that was the result of their work making them a celebrity in the ID camp, which resulted in becoming a target for even NCSE based ridicule:

http://www.iscid.org/guenter....ler.php

My advice was to not alienate all who looked up to them this way, for its educational value, because things would soon enough turn around.  The disclaimer is now long gone...

Date: 2012/11/05 06:29:49, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2012,04:34)
Talk is cheap.

Gary, do something.

E.G. provide a novel result.

If you have a simulation of intelligence then why don't you use it to solve a problem.

The TSP comes to mind. Go for it!

Or anything really.

The most novel and stunning application I know of is to give it speech then as long as consciousness in not required (or somehow posses it) I expect it would go out of it's mind with panic where told they are being made gone (killed).  I would not try that with a robot though, it could get very dangerous.  In virtual reality it might just be a little traumatic to the experimenter, especially when they actually do have to turn off the program, which then ends their life, because of the experiment being over.

EA's and GA's keep trying random solutions to solve a given problem and even though they might solve it that is not a test of how well it models reality.  Only seems like it because you were conditioned to think that way.  In reality though, the best sign of intelligence/reality is it tells you to go solve your own damn problem, because they're busy.  Or gets your drink from the fridge then dumps it on your head while calling you a lazy slob.

Real intelligence is often not very cooperative.  And when you take away it's individuality you get a virtually unintelligent zombie.

Date: 2012/11/05 06:45:21, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2012,05:51)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,05:08)
But the theory covers so much science and requires some programming skills resulting in a steep learning curve, for some.

Quote
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science.


What does your theory explain? Be specific?

Give an example of a thing that your theory explains and also explain how it's currently explained.

Then detail why your explanation is superior.

I keep asking this. You keep ignoring it.

I don't need to think very hard to work out why that might be.

The theory is for modeling reality.  Current EA's and GA's are baby-toys in comparison.  Best way to prove that, is for you to try it for yourself.

Date: 2012/11/05 17:10:10, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2012,14:49)
The sad thing is Gary that I'd be fascinated if I believed you had something.

For example, I've been following this:

http://www.kickstarter.com/project....t....ts

 
Quote
I can't promise actual physical aliens from another planet, but I can offer you real 'alien' life forms who can live in a virtual world on your computer. And I do mean real. I'm not talking about a computer game designed to simulate lifelike behavior; I mean genuine artificial life. I mean virtual creatures constructed from complex networks of virtual brain cells and biochemical reactions and genes. They'll learn things for themselves and have their own thoughts. I don't program them to behave in a certain way - they make their own decisions. If they get sick it will be because something has disturbed the delicate balance of their biochemistry, and remedies must be discovered that can rebalance it. If they evolve new traits or suffer from unknown hereditary diseases it'll be because nature has taken its course, not because it's part of the plot. If you conclude that they're conscious, thinking, feeling beings then it won't be because I've somehow fooled you. I'm not here to fool you; I'm here to celebrate the beauty and complexity of life with you.


He (Steve Grand) has a track record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......e_Grand

I've got his book!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Growing....7607332

It's a good read.

Whatever he ultimately comes up with I'm quite sure will be worth a look.

So, keep up the smokescreen of "dueling egos" and "traumatic to the experimenter" if you like as an excuse not to produce anything. It's vastly amusing!

Steve's project raised $56,818 because people believed in either him or his explanation of what he wanted to do. They thought it was worth finding out what he could do.

Think about that.

The model you are comparing with is not for modeling "intelligent cause".  Nor is it origin of life theory that also describes chemistry experiments/models teachers need for class.  

Your intellectual laziness very much shows.

Date: 2012/11/05 17:13:02, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 05 2012,13:44)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,03:39)
 
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 05 2012,01:07)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,23:20)
     
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 04 2012,21:56)
Gary, did you ever send your stuff to other IDists beside Matti Leisola? If so how did Behe, Dembski, and the guys from the Biologic Institute, the Evolutionary Informatics Lab and the Discovery Institute react? IIRC, UD regulars run a private discussion forum. If you discussed your stuff there or if you had other opportunities to discuss it with JohnnyB, JowG or KairosFocus what did they say?

I never posted anything at UD.  But I correspond with Caroline Crocker and have been keeping the Discovery Institute's communication director Robert Crowther informed of major developments so that they are not blindsided by the theory, and know what to prepare for.  Reaction can be summed up as:  From what I had that of course still needed work there were no complaints from anyone in the ID camp.

Well, no complaints surely is not the same as being endorsed and supported.

Due to circumstances that are beyond my ability to change it's still best that it is not endorsed and supported by the Discovery Institute and others who are automatically dismissed as crackpots anyway.  Like any large scientific project there are also dueling egos, and in a way I'm just one more.  Even the DI has to be careful not to start a feud between us, which they get stuck in the middle of.    It's best that I develop my own niche that others in the movement have little problem adapting to.

Thus, you isolate yourself even from potential allies. And those ID proponents you have contacted are surely not those who are known for contributions to the fields that would be relevant for your claims. But what do you expect here?

I expect what you gave me, another situation where I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

Date: 2012/11/05 17:24:44, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 05 2012,11:25)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,20:11)
...like this the theory is already all set to revolutionize science,...

What theory Gary? You haven't presented one yet. All you keep babbling about is that this supposed "intelligent design" thing is a theory, but you haven't...you know...actually demonstrated that by...you know...stating what the theory is. Here's a hint: a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." So what has this "theory of intelligent design" repeatedly confirmed? What are your "body of facts"? What observations and experiments have you done?

What is your theory Gary?

Where's a sample of your work?  Show me one hypothesis or theory (such as a paper describing how a metabolic system works that is based on protein crystallization data that you produced) that you published anywhere.

Date: 2012/11/05 18:20:30, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2012,18:06)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,15:24)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 05 2012,11:25)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,20:11)
...like this the theory is already all set to revolutionize science,...

What theory Gary? You haven't presented one yet. All you keep babbling about is that this supposed "intelligent design" thing is a theory, but you haven't...you know...actually demonstrated that by...you know...stating what the theory is. Here's a hint: a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." So what has this "theory of intelligent design" repeatedly confirmed? What are your "body of facts"? What observations and experiments have you done?

What is your theory Gary?

Where's a sample of your work?  Show me one hypothesis or theory (such as a paper describing how a metabolic system works that is based on protein crystallization data that you produced) that you published anywhere.

That's not the way it works.  You're the one claiming to have revolutionised science.  You're the one with the burden of proof.

As this is such a comprehensive theory (all the way from atoms to noses), it should be easy to make a start on presenting evidence for your claim - if it's this big, you must have done a lot of tests to show that it's better than mainstream science.  (Otherwise you'd just look silly, and I'm sure you don't want to look silly.)  Let's see 'em.

It is now time for those who claim to better know what the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design is (in scientific context) describing to prove that they have a better explanation for "intelligent cause".

Date: 2012/11/05 18:36:36, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
My new computer/software was able to save a pdf version of the theory!

https://sites.google.com/site....ign.pdf

There should now be no excuses at all for not having studying it, before commenting.

Date: 2012/11/05 19:03:25, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2012,18:45)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,16:36)
My new computer/software was able to save a pdf version of the theory!

https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf

There should now be no excuses at all for not having studying it, before commenting.

Why is it worth studying?  You've given us no reason to do so.

An objective scientist would know better than that.  

Best reason for studying before commenting, is to not make an ass out of themselves by not even knowing what they're talking about.

Date: 2012/11/05 19:37:27, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 05 2012,19:24)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,18:36)
My new computer/software was able to save a pdf version of the theory!

https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf

There should now be no excuses at all for not having studying it, before commenting.

You got it backwards, pal. I don't need an excuse for not studying your crap. I need motivation to study it. So far your incoherent babbling seems like a poor motivator.

If you are that uninterested in this area science then you should not have commented at all.  Only made an ass out of yourself by pretending to know what you're talking about, when you didn't even read it.  That's as pompous as it gets, and I'm not here to make excuses for you..

Date: 2012/11/05 20:58:31, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2012,20:39)
I read the first couple of pages.


Then you almost made it through the Preface!  

Stopped reading before even reaching the Introduction.

You are even more of a scientific disgrace.  Sorry for my having to be this honest.

Date: 2012/11/05 21:22:41, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2012,21:07)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,20:58)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2012,20:39)
I read the first couple of pages.


Then you almost made it through the Preface!  

Stopped reading before even reaching the Introduction.

You are even more of a scientific disgrace.  Sorry for my having to be this honest.

Hmm...

Did you read what I wrote?  Obviously not.  Because I specifically commented on things that occurred on page 38 (which I remind you are not numbered)

AND

things that are specifically WRONG with what you have written.

I insult you AND point out mistakes.  You only insult.

I suggest you learn from this experience.  I doubt that you ever will and that saddens me.  A mind truly is a terrible thing to waste... and really, you're a few neurons above that of a talking frog.

You are trying to save-face by reading almost to Page 1 then scanning for something to quote mine or to make a ridiculous issue out of.

Date: 2012/11/05 21:42:11, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2012,21:07)
Did you read what I wrote?  Obviously not.  Because I specifically commented on things that occurred on page 38 (which I remind you are not numbered)

By the way, the page numbers are clearly there on the top left or top right, depending on whether it is an odd or even page.

And I already learned this lesson in another forum that pretended to know what it says, after I checked the hit counter and found that there were 0 new hits.  Not a single one of them even looked at it, yet all pretended to know exactly what is in it.

Date: 2012/11/05 22:10:07, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 05 2012,21:54)
So, Gary.

Almost ten pages in and you are getting exactly the same response as the myriad other forums you've visited. For the umpteenth time your theory is being described as unreadable, incoherent, rambling, and your understanding of what a theory is and what it is supposed to do is, yet again, being called into question.

There's a pattern here, Gary....obviously something is going wrong. I see two possibilities here;

A) - You've been terribly unlucky in choosing the correct forum in which to present your work. I mean what else but bad luck could explain the fact that every time you post your work it is immediately shot down as being incoherent, unreadable and patently not a scientific theory?

B) - Your work actually is incoherent, unreadable and patently not a scientific theory.

On the balance of probabilities, Gary, which of the two options seems most likely to be true?

You helped convince me that I need to get back to work on unfinished software that at least science forums (as opposed to religion bashing forums) and programming community does in fact appreciate.  I'll still be responding here, but not bother much with the usual intellectual dishonesty.

Date: 2012/11/05 23:15:18, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
While waiting to see whether OgreMkV goes completely insane or not, you may enjoy this excellent thread featuring earlier minimal-code models and more at FractalForums.com where this year's contest entries include fractal-life that's worth checking out:

Let's collaborate on something! - A (Fractal) Theory Of Everything?

That is what the theory looks like in a forum where all are interested in math and science.

Date: 2012/11/05 23:37:03, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 05 2012,23:21)
Btw sorry for that. I rather go to work now than following GaGa's BS further.

And for the musically inclined, here's a major classic to help explain where we're at, and where we're going, forever:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....GOhFwN4

Date: 2012/11/06 00:10:20, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 05 2012,23:46)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,22:10)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 05 2012,21:54)
So, Gary.

Almost ten pages in and you are getting exactly the same response as the myriad other forums you've visited. For the umpteenth time your theory is being described as unreadable, incoherent, rambling, and your understanding of what a theory is and what it is supposed to do is, yet again, being called into question.

There's a pattern here, Gary....obviously something is going wrong. I see two possibilities here;

A) - You've been terribly unlucky in choosing the correct forum in which to present your work. I mean what else but bad luck could explain the fact that every time you post your work it is immediately shot down as being incoherent, unreadable and patently not a scientific theory?

B) - Your work actually is incoherent, unreadable and patently not a scientific theory.

On the balance of probabilities, Gary, which of the two options seems most likely to be true?

You helped convince me that I need to get back to work on unfinished software that at least science forums (as opposed to religion bashing forums) and programming community does in fact appreciate.  I'll still be responding here, but not bother much with the usual intellectual dishonesty.


You could try to give up some of the intellectual dishonesty, but we don't really expect it to happen.

Glen Davidson

Evidence please..

Date: 2012/11/06 05:35:27, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 06 2012,04:20)
Tell you what, why don't you show a worksheet based on your work? If you intend for it to be used in class it's got to be more cogent then your ramblings.

So let's see the class worksheet you claim exists!


I never claimed to have a class worksheet for the Theory of Intelligent Design.  But wow!  That's actually a great idea.

I'm shocked you would suggest such a straight to the classroom idea.  And it even beats being quiet while Woodbine fishes for another sucker.  Not that I won't still come a running to help set the hook if they get a bite with their new 5=<1 lure.

Date: 2012/11/06 08:03:31, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
My goodness, there are now so many trolling the pond their lines are destined to get all tangled up together.

But FYI:

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-....1513273

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-....in.html

Date: 2012/11/06 09:54:59, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2012,08:37)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,08:03)
My goodness, there are now so many trolling the pond their lines are destined to get all tangled up together.

But FYI:

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-....1513273

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-....in.html

Perhaps if you would answer questions when they are asked, deal with issues as they arise, and provide explanations when requested, then you wouldn't have so many issues intertwining.

Believe it or not, most of the people here would actually like to help you develop this notion.  That way it can be tested and the question can be settled once and for all.

So, are you going to deal with your misunderstanding of natural selection, explain (and cite references to) your comment about the exponential increase in species in the Cambrian, and perhaps make the graphs in your paper understandable?

BTW: Have you ever read a peer-reviewed paper?  They have citations for everything that they say that isn't their own work.  You have zero.  At least, there are no references in the body text that I found.  I think you need to do a lot of reading and figuring out what actual scientists are saying and then incorporate reality into your paper... but then it wouldn't be about intelligent bacteria deciding to grow a flagellum would it?

Considering the first comic that they just posted in their last reply above, I would imagine that k.e.. might find it topical.

And believe it or not, except for ideas that happen regardless of forum conditions, I long ago gave up on this place helping develop this notion/theory.  I'm just seeing the usual religion bashing and pompous politics, not science.  The way everything I say gets twisted around I'm wasting way too much time answering ridiculous accusations.  Readers likely know what's up anyway.  They are smart enough to understand that it is scientifically unethical to trash a theory before even studying it.  But historically, that's the way it works.  Ones with scientific "authority" rip your life apart while hoping you drop dead from starvation, as they pity what they decree are misguided ramblings.  Here's just one of them:

Quote
Richard Owen, an ambitious leading figure of Victorian science, wrote one of the main reviews of the Origin of Species for the respected Edinburgh Review. Owen vacilated between accepting or denying evolution but was certain that Darwin's proposed mechanisms were wrong. Owen argued instead for a confusing theory of "the continuous operation of the ordained becoming of living things." In addition to throwing scorn at Darwin's ideas Owen heaped praise on his own!

http://www.victorianweb.org/science....in.html

Date: 2012/11/06 13:38:23, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2012,10:32)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 06 2012,10:11)
 
Quote
I'm just seeing the usual religion bashing and pompous politics, not science.

Question for you Gary.

Do you see us religion bashing in this thread because we're attacking your notion of Intelligent Design?

So, are you admitting that ID is religious in nature?

Because, I see no religion bashing in this thread.  Other threads, sure, but those threads aren't about you, now are they?

Honestly, this thread only best illustrates the usual pompous stereotyping.

All threads together best illustrates the usual religion bashing that the theory makes possible, where you call it science but it's still just a good excuse for bashing religions other than your own.

Needing me to side with you on the Theory of Intelligent Design being religious illustrates how good some are at ignoring what I said about it already being a scientific theory, not religion.  In that case, it is your religion (whatever it is) that makes it religious.

Date: 2012/11/06 13:48:57, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,10:10)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,09:54)
They are smart enough to understand that it is scientifically unethical to trash a theory before even studying it.  

Well Gary, it's a little hard to study it when neither you nor any other supposed "proponent" can actually articulate it. I can't imagine how any of us have trashed your theory when none of us actually know what it is.

Now you know why I would rather publish my work where there are peers who can articulate it.  At least they know what else is around, and why this is a very scientifically exciting and useful theory.

Date: 2012/11/06 14:11:53, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,13:55)
Well Gary, just so you know, I'm not going to hold my breath  until the folks at the mystery publishing place you reference actually go about articulating this supposed theory of yours. But please, could you copy and paste this illuminating articulation here when they get around to actually...umm...articulating it, m'kay? Or maybe I'll hear about it at your Nobel acceptance speech...

Theory of Intelligent Design - Was Published Here.

Date: 2012/11/06 14:31:35, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,14:21)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,14:11)
 
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,13:55)
Well Gary, just so you know, I'm not going to hold my breath  until the folks at the mystery publishing place you reference actually go about articulating this supposed theory of yours. But please, could you copy and paste this illuminating articulation here when they get around to actually...umm...articulating it, m'kay? Or maybe I'll hear about it at your Nobel acceptance speech...

Theory of Intelligent Design - Was Published Here.

BZZZZZ...wrong!

There's no theory there. We've been through this Gary. Several of us have provided you with the parameters and definition for a scientific theory. Links to baffle-gaggle on artificial intelligence and system development are not a theory of intelligent design. Nice try though.

And Your Nine Inch Nails - Are Here.

Date: 2012/11/06 16:52:59, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
In case some are wondering why I'm not bowing down (or should I say bending over?) for this forum, my multidisciplinary work already made it to the museum level.  I'm very comfortably well known/respected in academia.  Over the years I have literally had busloads of science teachers, science students, paleontology society, paleontologists and more here at my house to have fun with science with me.  Thanks to others who also live for science I am able to get around real good without ever having to leave home.  Here's something recent that I'm very proud of as well:

Nathaniel S. Fox, Interpretation of Early Mesozoic Ichnology in Holyoke, MA

Direct Download of the Above PowerPoint - Is Here

I very well know what science and a scientific theory is.  And I have many years of experience with intellectual snobbery from know-it-all science-stoppers who spit on you from their overreaching high-chairs, in order to make themselves appear to be scientific.

I'm (in the name of science) here to set science right.  In this case that requires taking scientific power that can be used or abused away from those who were scientifically irresponsible with it, while empowering ones who deserve it such as Planet Source Code, which was not created by me it was created by Ian Ippolito, who certainly did right, by science, and myself.

More Info Here

Date: 2012/11/06 22:21:11, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 06 2012,19:35)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,11:48)
       
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,10:10)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,09:54)
They are smart enough to understand that it is scientifically unethical to trash a theory before even studying it.  

Well Gary, it's a little hard to study it when neither you nor any other supposed "proponent" can actually articulate it. I can't imagine how any of us have trashed your theory when none of us actually know what it is.

Now you know why I would rather publish my work where there are peers who can articulate it.  At least they know what else is around, and why this is a very scientifically exciting and useful theory.

Will you describe exactly how the so-called "theory" is "useful", especially "scientifically"?


The theory I work on is a much more complete model of reality.  It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.  It's also the only model that makes immediate sense of what Guenter Albrecht-Buehler and others are now discovering, that 20+ years ago was predicted by the theory to exist.

   
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 06 2012,19:35)
IDiots have been claiming for years that the acceptance of "ID" by science would change science for the better and open new avenues of research. When they're asked for details the IDiots either run away or just keep claiming that the acceptance of "ID" by science would change science for the better and open new avenues of research.

So, can and will you describe a real world situation where the acceptance of "ID" (alleged intelligent design and creation by a supernatural entity - aka "God") would change science for the better and open new avenues of research?

Theories which require unexplained/unexplainable "supernatural" intervention are religious theories not scientific theories, therefore they do not open new avenues of scientific research.

Date: 2012/11/06 23:17:20, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 06 2012,15:27)
From that link:
 
Quote

Whatever you say Gary. But it is notable that in addition to responding to criticism with claims of bullying, you seem intent on keeping a "scientific theory" that deals with biology as far away from biologists as possible,

Anyway, I have said my piece and seen how you respond to criticism with insult, rather than a reasoned and rational rebuttal. Clearly your work was not worthy of my time and I stand by my score. Good day to you.


Seems to be a pattern forming.

Hey, Gary, does your "intelligence" do pattern recognition?

Yes, that's how it sees where it's going, and what to head towards.  For most reliable "hidden feature" detection (where there are many pixels addressing action data) using digital RAM for memory (instead of network type addressing as in neural networks and what Arnold Trehub explained) may require adding (as per David Heiserman) Gamma function.  Or use digital RAM memory to model Trehub synaptic matrix memory, which should have no problem finding best-fit with what it knows.

Date: 2012/11/07 01:15:55, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2012,14:40)
1) I'm an atheist, I have no religion (and no atheism and science are not religions)

In the US the legal status (and my opinion) of Atheism is a religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......atheism

My experience with science-bashing (in the name of Atheism) includes Guenter's disclaimer that was the result of his work becoming popular with non-Atheists who love intelligence related research, which in turn resulted in protest from Atheists, Secular Humanists, Free Thinkers, etc., who bashed their work too.  And the philosophical arguments from the Atheist religion that needs still uncorrected retina biology that left out Muller cell light guides (with near 100% efficiency) is no different at all from why you blame the other side of doing, in the name of religion.

Here are the "My Best Theory" lyrics that for some reason exactly describe my experience in the middle/center of this two sided "culture war" that this forum helps conduct:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....l2i1QeU

Hopefully, what I see in the song, now makes perfect sense.

Date: 2012/11/07 01:37:46, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,00:48)
Gary:

 
Quote

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.


To make that claim stick, you'd have to have done a broad survey of capabilities of evolutionary computation instances and made specific comparisons demonstrating the superiority of your approach. I doubt that this has happened. You could dispel that by showing your work. Let's start with your comparison of your program and that of Eureqa. Please show us how your program does symbolic regression better than Eureqa. And then PyEvolve. And DEAP. And PyGP. Your claim implies that you've already taken this step, so all I'm asking for is that you show us what you must already have in hand.

Others have already asked for a similar comparison concerning the TSP. I'd be interested in that, too. I asked Bill Dembski to make his criticism of GAs stick when considering the TSP back in 1997, and so far as I know, he has never even attempted a discussion in general that focuses on the TSP. Can you do better?

Can you please first explain to me why (even where you could) better solving a Traveling Salesman Problem proves that a GA/EA is a better model of intelligence than a cognitive model that has long been used to explain how intelligence works?

Your comparison is identical to one that concludes a pocket calculator (or software) is far more intelligent than a human brain, because it is far superior for solving hard math problems.

Date: 2012/11/07 01:39:48, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,00:48)
Gary:

   
Quote

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.


To make that claim stick, you'd have to have done a broad survey of capabilities of evolutionary computation instances and made specific comparisons demonstrating the superiority of your approach. I doubt that this has happened. You could dispel that by showing your work. Let's start with your comparison of your program and that of Eureqa. Please show us how your program does symbolic regression better than Eureqa. And then PyEvolve. And DEAP. And PyGP. Your claim implies that you've already taken this step, so all I'm asking for is that you show us what you must already have in hand.

Others have already asked for a similar comparison concerning the TSP. I'd be interested in that, too. I asked Bill Dembski to make his criticism of GAs stick when considering the TSP back in 1997, and so far as I know, he has never even attempted a discussion in general that focuses on the TSP. Can you do better?


Can you first explain to me why (even where you could) better solving a Traveling Salesman Problem proves that a GA/EA is a better model of intelligence than a cognitive model that has long been used to explain how intelligence works?

Your comparison is identical to one that concludes a pocket calculator (or software) is far more intelligent than a human brain, because it is far superior for solving hard math problems.

Date: 2012/11/07 02:22:51, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,02:05)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,01:39)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,00:48)
Gary:

       
Quote

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.


To make that claim stick, you'd have to have done a broad survey of capabilities of evolutionary computation instances and made specific comparisons demonstrating the superiority of your approach. I doubt that this has happened. You could dispel that by showing your work. Let's start with your comparison of your program and that of Eureqa. Please show us how your program does symbolic regression better than Eureqa. And then PyEvolve. And DEAP. And PyGP. Your claim implies that you've already taken this step, so all I'm asking for is that you show us what you must already have in hand.

Others have already asked for a similar comparison concerning the TSP. I'd be interested in that, too. I asked Bill Dembski to make his criticism of GAs stick when considering the TSP back in 1997, and so far as I know, he has never even attempted a discussion in general that focuses on the TSP. Can you do better?


Can you first explain to me why (even where you could) better solving a Traveling Salesman Problem proves that a GA/EA is a better model of intelligence than a cognitive model that has long been used to explain how intelligence works?

Your comparison is identical to one that concludes a pocket calculator (or software) is far more intelligent than a human brain, because it is far superior for solving hard math problems.

Huh?

Look at your claim. In what sense does your model put "EA's (sic) and GA's (sic) to shame"? That's the relevant point. And I need not refer to comparisons to human brains to ask you to support your claim. Recall the question that you offered the quoted statement as an answer to: "Will you describe exactly how the so-called "theory" is "useful", especially "scientifically"?" The claim you put on the table was one of relative utility, not philosophy of cognition.

It appears that my suspicion that you haven't done the work that would ground your claim is spot-on.

I have been claiming that it is a better model of reality where living things (from molecular intelligence on up to human intelligence) have intelligence that make their own choices that over long periods of time can develop into new species.

You are now demanding an unfair comparison so that you can say that your pocket calculator is a superior model of intelligence, while also suggesting that it better explains how intelligent causation works.

Date: 2012/11/07 02:42:38, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
I Don't Know about others in the audience who just got a good punch in the head from that last couple/few replies, but I sure need this one right now...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....lYB3iSM

Date: 2012/11/07 05:39:43, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 07 2012,04:14)
There are a number of strategies involved in solving the TSP, of which intelligence certainly is one.

For example, animals who cache food have been shown to compute a near-optimal TSP route between each cache.

When people are asked to solve a TSP by instinct they realise  certain attributes of a path will not be optimal. For example, paths that cross or paths criss crossing the "interior" of the network will (typically) be non-optimal and without any experience of this people perform much better then random search by default.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed.....1505612

 
Quote
The relation between perceptual organization and the process of solving visually presented TSPs is briefly discussed, as is the potential of optimization for providing a conceptual framework for the study of intelligence.


So, Gary, your comparison fails. The difference between a pocket calculator and an intelligence solving the TSP is measured in lifetimes of universes. And plenty of other people think there is a relationship between solving the TSP and intelligence. Except you, of course. No doubt every potential "test" that comes your way will be dismissed in a similar way.

If your intelligence is nothing more then a pocket calculator it'll fail to solve any complex TSP by brute force. If it's more then that I expect a better result then a pocket calculator.

If it's intelligent, as you claim, that intelligence can be measured by it's ability to solve the TSP without having to brute force it.

 
Quote
You are now demanding an unfair comparison so that you can say that your pocket calculator is a superior model of intelligence, while also suggesting that it better explains how intelligent causation works.


Which is funny because it was also you who said:

 
Quote
It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.


So, the situation seems to be that the "baby toys" you disparage can do something (solve the TSP and find near or optimum solutions) that your "intelligence" cannot. So in what way is your intelligence putting GA's to shame if it can't actually do what those GA's do?

And in case you are not aware (you are not) the TSP "problem" is just a reflection of a deeper reality:

 
Quote
Besides being a "polytope" of a difficult combinatorial optimization problem from a complexity theory point of view, there are important cases of practical problems that can be formulated as TSP problems and many other problems are generalizations of this problem.  Besides the drilling of printed circuits boards described above, problems having the TSP structure occur in the analysis of the structure of crystals, (Bland and Shallcross, 1987), the overhauling of gas turbine engines (Pante, Lowe and Chandrasekaran, 1987), in material handling in a warehouse (Ratliff and Rosenthal, 1981), in cutting stock problems, (Garfinkel, 1977), the clustering of data arrays, (Lenstra and Rinooy Kan, 1975), the sequencing of jobs on a single machine (Gilmore and Gomory, 1964) and the assignment of routes for planes of a specified fleet (Boland, Jones, and Nemhauser, 1994). Related variations on the traveling salesman problem include the resource constrained traveling salesman problem which has applications in scheduling with an aggregate deadline (Pekny and Miller, 1990). This paper also shows how the prize collecting traveling salesman problem (Balas, 1989) and the orienteering problem (Golden, Levy and Vohra, 1987) are special cases of the resource constrained TSP. Most importantly, the traveling salesman problem often comes up as a subproblem in more complex combinatorial problems, the best known and important one of which is the vehicle routing problem, that is, the problem of determining for a fleet of vehicles which customers should be served by each vehicle and in what order each vehicle should visit the customers assigned to it.


If your "intelligence" can indeed make GA's that solve the TSP look like baby toys then you will be RICH overnight. Simply optimising the delivery route for a courier company can save many $$.

So, Gary, your move.

Not a bad response, but you are also comparing algorithms that are not for modeling intelligence to one that is the starting point for modeling any intelligence, as well as intelligent causation events, and can develop into new species just as in reality.  In fact, that's what you end up with where you make a molecule by molecule model a cell, or neuron by neuron model of a human brain.

I have no doubt that it would easily solve the Traveling Salesman Problem.  But I do not have the time and resources for the hundreds of things I can only wish I could afford and be able to do.  And it's certainly not my fault that scientific resources are only allowed to be used to stop me from succeeding because of my work so easily meeting the requirements of the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design...

Date: 2012/11/07 17:22:17, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 07 2012,08:27)
If only the IDiots at UD and the DI had the guts to step out of their sanctuaries and come here and state their opinions on Gary's "theory". It would be interesting to see what they think of it.


I agree.  

 
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 07 2012,08:27)
Gary, are you familiar with uprightbiped's 'semiotic' argument for ID?


No.  Never heard of it before.

 
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 07 2012,08:27)
If so, how does it relate to your "theory", if at all?


I searched for info.  My opinion is that it is another argument for such a theory being possible, but at this point in time that has already been answered by the theory being possible.  I think they are more or less arguing that there is functional anarchy at work (as opposed to lucky accidents) as in part explained here:

http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehl....ome.htm

 
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 07 2012,08:27)
I don't remember if you've been asked this already but have you thought of posting a link to your "theory" on UD to see what they think of it?

I thought about it.  But since I only have time for less than 1% of all that I wish I could finish, all the other projects took priority.  And honestly, I would rather not get caged-up in the UD sanctuary.  Nor does that help the Theory of Intelligent Design get around.  I would rather be here, than there.  But as I earlier mentioned I email Robert Crowther, Director of Communications at the Discovery Institute whenever there is a major development.  It's a quick way to stay in contact

Date: 2012/11/07 17:53:17, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,08:05)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,07:01)
Gary:

 
Quote

I have no doubt that it would easily solve the Traveling Salesman Problem.


You do realize, don't you, that you just claimed that P=NP?

Oh yeah, and that the proof that P=NP is implicit in your existing code?

In the glass window experiment, not being able to solve the Traveling Salesman Problem is expected in a model of an insect brain such as a fly.  It is supposed to keep bashing into the transparent barrier until it knocks itself senseless, even though there is a nearby exit somewhere else.  

Being able to quickly find the dark exit is not what happens in reality.  Enough sensory/memory/subsystems must be added to make it the equivalent of a mammal type brain.  In humans we know there is a glass window and don't keep bashing into it to get outside, and will right away look for another way out even though they cannot see light/food through it.  But a fly is not expected to find then wait by the door for someone to open it for them.

As I said before, this is for modeling reality, not passing tests that do not even require intelligence to do well at.  An optimal solution can be easily enough calculated with a math formula that gets them out right away, but that is not reality, and only leads to your being easily fooled by unrealistic nonsense.

Date: 2012/11/07 18:49:54, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,18:03)
Come on, Gary. Just admit that you don't know the least thing about computational complexity theory and you won't have to make up gibberish like that. Hint: it helps if the gibberish at least has some keywords from the topic at hand. Yours doesn't.

It's a collection of AI techniques, many of which I have already modeled/tested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...._theory

That is all well and good for someone new to AI but it is not "cognitive science".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....science

Date: 2012/11/07 19:10:19, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
A good question to ask right now would be:  Is the common AI technique called an "expert system" actually Intelligent?

Date: 2012/11/07 19:26:19, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,19:14)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:10)
A good question to ask right now would be:  Is the common AI technique called an "expert system" actually Intelligent?

A more apropos question is why is Gary desperately trying to change the topic of discussion?

You would simply rather discuss AI than to discuss what is truly relevant to the Theory of Intelligent Design.

You are essentially putting plastic artificial flowers under the microscope in order to support your biological conclusions.

Date: 2012/11/07 19:52:31, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,19:38)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 07 2012,19:31)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:26)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,19:14)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:10)
A good question to ask right now would be:  Is the common AI technique called an "expert system" actually Intelligent?

A more apropos question is why is Gary desperately trying to change the topic of discussion?

You would simply rather discuss AI than to discuss what is truly relevant to the Theory of Intelligent Design.

You are essentially putting plastic artificial flowers under the microscope in order to support your biological conclusions.

Thank goodness Gary (the arbiter of true design theory ® [in VB] ) is here to tell us what's important. By redefining science and then sprinkling it in his word salad he's got a 'theory' that neither predicts nor explains anything. Well done sir! Templeton grant for you!

I've been the beneficiary of a Templeton grant, and the paper on the evolution of effective methods in movement is one result from that.

I don't think that Gary is close to getting a Templeton grant.

The Templeton Foundation is another which gave into political pressures, and now only fund political efforts to destroy this new area of scientific research.

But back to the subject at hand.  Here is a paper that uses "computational complexity theory" to test the performance an "expert system":

http://bmir.stanford.edu/file_as....246.pdf

Question still remains, of whether an AI expert system that has the knowledge of hundreds of physicians in it is actually "intelligent".  And for some weird reason you refuse to even answer.

Date: 2012/11/07 20:36:01, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:11)
Quote
Question still remains, of whether an AI expert system that has the knowledge of hundreds of physicians in it is actually "intelligent".  And for some weird reason you refuse to even answer.


Because it has nothing to do with the discussion I'm trying to have? That a response would be rewarding a blatant attempt at digression away from the point? That would be *so* weird, wouldn't it?

You have been claiming that computational complexity theory which is applied to numerous AI techniques is a good test of whether something is actually intelligent or not.  

Your implied answer is that expert systems with large databases are so intelligent they far surpass the intelligence of any human who has ever lived.

My answer was "that is not reality, and only leads to your being easily fooled by unrealistic nonsense."

Date: 2012/11/07 21:02:14, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2012,19:36)
Gary, so now we add complexity to the list of things you have no clue on?

Just out of curiosity, have you researched your paper's failure on the concept of natural selection, the Cambrian explosion and the rather inexplicable graphs?

One would think that things in one's life's work that are wrong would be high on the discussion topic list.

Do you have a definition of "intelligence"?  If so, what is it?  No, I'm NOT going to troll through your paper for it.

Here is the operational definition for intelligence, from the Introduction:

 
Quote
Intelligence is here operationally defined by how it works, as an autonomous sensory-feedback (confidence) guided sensory addressed memory system that through trial-and-error learns new successful actions to be taken in response to environmental conditions.  In addition to something to CONTROL and MEMORY there must be one or more CONFIDENCE levels gauging failure or success of its motor actions towards reaching the goal and a way to GUESS motor actions when a learned response does not yet exist but it must try something.  A good-guess is based upon existing knowledge.  A random-guess is the last resort and only has to be "random" to the intelligence.  For example where one must think up "random numbers" for another to guess they may use their phone number, which the other person does not know so to them they are indeed a random string of numbers.  What is most important for something to be "random" is that the intelligence perceives it as such.

Confidence gauges whether it is getting closer to its goal or not, if not then Guess is taken by changing direction to produce tumble/guess where to next go. In a most simple chemotaxis system Guess and Motor are combined, are the molecules that act as a switch to change motor direction where only a single memory location is required, instead of two as shown here that takes the same concept to self-learning as in the human brain and other intelligent living things where Motors (muscles) are separate from the Guess mechanism requiring two memory locations with In0/Out0 a 4 state (0-3) or more analog to recall confidence level that increases each time the action worked, decreases when it failed then upon reaching 0 produces a guess.  Like us we know when we need to take a guess or have an action response we are confident will work.  And as when first born, almost everything is a new experience. No memory at all of what to do is then sensed by Out0 being 0 which likewise produces a guess.  What works is stored with increasing confidence, for as long as it keeps working, but confidence level does not need to increase past 3 for a good model. In bacteria the interoceptive sensors would simply be metabolic pathway molecules reporting motor condition back to the sensory end of the system to provide time delay that through Confidence being restored by that action switches motor back to swimming after tumble has been completed.

There should always be an easily recognizable circuit where each part works with others in a certain way.  This includes motors/muscles where there are expected to be two connections to the memory/brain.  The input connects to the data action outputs of a Random Access Memory controlling it.  The output is a sensory feedback signal to RAM addressing that adds (usually subconscious) awareness of the muscle action.  This sensory output can be from other sensors not directly connected to, such as touch sensors on skin that “feel” muscles moving or eye sensing travel direction.  Without at least indirect sensory feedback of motor actions addressing RAM the system has no way to know whether the motor has in turn produced the expected action, or not.

Although not a circuit requirement (as in the four above) there should be the production of regular detectable synchronized cycles, as the algorithm/system keeps repeating the one thought at a time process.  Where these cycles are no longer present then the intelligence is nonfunctional.

Where a system is missing one or more requirements we have a system that may appear to be intelligent but would only qualify as a protointelligent behavior.  This is true where the sensor(s) connect directly to the motors in a way that keeps the system on course, but does not learn how to control itself.  There must be a memory system between sensors and motors being controlled.  An example so simple it is almost cheating is the E.coli chemotaxis system where chemoreceptors address a single memory location that increases or decreases according to the amount of chemical being sensed, and when it is going the wrong way tumbles to try another direction.

Being self-learning, intelligence will produce the next emergent level of intelligence when it learns how to achieve it.  Large numbers of rudimentary intelligences are predicted to have a tendency to spontaneously produce easily detectable and measurable emergent intelligence at the next level.  No computer code is needed, entities learn how to on their own.  Demonstrating this intelligent cause/causation would require many intelligent entities with rudimentary intelligence which self-assemble (at higher complexity is also called self-organize) to produce an emergent intelligence, much the same way a molecular genome produces a living cell, or living cells produced us.

http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

There is more detail in following sections, but that's a summary.  Not needing a "natural selection" variable is the result of not needing a 1200+ year old generalization.  This is a cognitive theory, that explains how intelligence works, through time...

Date: 2012/11/07 21:19:08, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:48)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,20:36)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:11)
   
Quote
Question still remains, of whether an AI expert system that has the knowledge of hundreds of physicians in it is actually "intelligent".  And for some weird reason you refuse to even answer.


Because it has nothing to do with the discussion I'm trying to have? That a response would be rewarding a blatant attempt at digression away from the point? That would be *so* weird, wouldn't it?

You have been claiming that computational complexity theory which is applied to numerous AI techniques is a good test of whether something is actually intelligent or not.  

Your implied answer is that expert systems with large databases are so intelligent they far surpass the intelligence of any human who has ever lived.

My answer was "that is not reality, and only leads to your being easily fooled by unrealistic nonsense."

I've said no such thing, Gary. If I had, you could demonstrate that with a quote of me saying that, which you will not manage because it doesn't exist. You do no better trying to read what I say than what Wikipedia says, apparently.

What I said was that your claim that your program could solve the TSP was a strong claim about *the* primary unresolved issue in computational complexity theory. That's what the stuff about P=NP was about, and if you knew diddly about computer science as a science, you would have understood that right off the bat. You didn't understood that, apparently still don't understand that, and still have no clue what is actually the point of the discussion. Hint: it isn't about some test for "intelligence". Hint: it is a far more basic issue in computer science.

Here is where you started on the tangent of expecting this intelligence model to outperform all other models, regardless of their being intelligent or not:

 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,00:48)
Gary:

     
Quote

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.


To make that claim stick, you'd have to have done a broad survey of capabilities of evolutionary computation instances and made specific comparisons demonstrating the superiority of your approach. I doubt that this has happened. You could dispel that by showing your work. Let's start with your comparison of your program and that of Eureqa. Please show us how your program does symbolic regression better than Eureqa. And then PyEvolve. And DEAP. And PyGP. Your claim implies that you've already taken this step, so all I'm asking for is that you show us what you must already have in hand.

Others have already asked for a similar comparison concerning the TSP. I'd be interested in that, too. I asked Bill Dembski to make his criticism of GAs stick when considering the TSP back in 1997, and so far as I know, he has never even attempted a discussion in general that focuses on the TSP. Can you do better?


A fly has more intelligence than an unintelligent expert system and such, yet your operational definition for intelligence apparently requires a fly to be more intelligent than an experienced human physician.

Date: 2012/11/07 21:54:41, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 07 2012,21:02)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,17:22)

         
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 07 2012,08:27)
I don't remember if you've been asked this already but have you thought of posting a link to your "theory" on UD to see what they think of it?

I thought about it.  But since I only have time for less than 1% of all that I wish I could finish, all the other projects took priority.
Why then waste your (and our) time here? I don't have the impression that you can gain anything here (besides publically selfing)


Like in the old days I wander the World (Wide Web) teaching and discussing my theory.  But the internet has made it possible to get far less sand in our shoes while traveling from place to place, even when traveling at nearly the speed of light.

   
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 07 2012,21:02)
   
Quote
 And honestly, I would rather not get caged-up in the UD sanctuary.  Nor does that help the Theory of Intelligent Design get around.  I would rather be here, than there.
You actually miss world class programmers. E.g. GilDodgen. Some over there even have contacts to former NASA programmers. In addition, I think that the discussion here gets redundant and that the guys over there may have better questions for you. I am quite willing to watch the discussion over there.


I doubt that an experienced NASA programmer would be surprised by the way this theory explains how intelligence works.  At least one at NASA should know the work of David Heiserman, or other who now teaches his theory within their own.

I'll put a visit to UD in my overfilled suggestion box.  But have others to first visit again, after finishing work that started there, which needs attention too.  Especially Biology Online.

   
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 07 2012,21:02)
   
Quote
 But as I earlier mentioned I email Robert Crowther, Director of Communications at the Discovery Institute whenever there is a major development.  It's a quick way to stay in contact
Acoording to DI's web pages      
Quote
Robert Crowther holds a BA in Journalism with an emphasis in public affairs and twenty years experience as a journalist, publisher, and brand marketing and media relations specialist.
Do you think that he is qualified to follow your demanding thoughts? Actually, how many major developments did you report to him? How many times did he reply? And what did he actually have to say regarding your work? In addition, how did Caroline Crocker respond? You mentioned before that there were no complaints from DI folks but  did their replies go beyond that? Did they make comments or suggestions that helped you in one or another way? If so, what did they contribute and how did it help you?


Robert Crowther is the director of communication, not their science expert(s).  It is not his job to give such opinions, they just communicate information back and forth.  Should suffice to say that they have been helpful. Sent me this in regards to the author/contributors to the premise of the theory:

https://sites.google.com/site.......fID.pdf

Dr. Crocker said quote: "I am not a computer expert so cannot really offer expertise. But, I have referred others to your information, in case they can help."

Date: 2012/11/07 22:07:33, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,21:32)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,21:19)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:48)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,20:36)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:11)
       
Quote
Question still remains, of whether an AI expert system that has the knowledge of hundreds of physicians in it is actually "intelligent".  And for some weird reason you refuse to even answer.


Because it has nothing to do with the discussion I'm trying to have? That a response would be rewarding a blatant attempt at digression away from the point? That would be *so* weird, wouldn't it?

You have been claiming that computational complexity theory which is applied to numerous AI techniques is a good test of whether something is actually intelligent or not.  

Your implied answer is that expert systems with large databases are so intelligent they far surpass the intelligence of any human who has ever lived.

My answer was "that is not reality, and only leads to your being easily fooled by unrealistic nonsense."

I've said no such thing, Gary. If I had, you could demonstrate that with a quote of me saying that, which you will not manage because it doesn't exist. You do no better trying to read what I say than what Wikipedia says, apparently.

What I said was that your claim that your program could solve the TSP was a strong claim about *the* primary unresolved issue in computational complexity theory. That's what the stuff about P=NP was about, and if you knew diddly about computer science as a science, you would have understood that right off the bat. You didn't understood that, apparently still don't understand that, and still have no clue what is actually the point of the discussion. Hint: it isn't about some test for "intelligence". Hint: it is a far more basic issue in computer science.

Here is where you started on the tangent of expecting this intelligence model to outperform all other models, regardless of their being intelligent or not:

   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,00:48)
Gary:

       
Quote

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.


To make that claim stick, you'd have to have done a broad survey of capabilities of evolutionary computation instances and made specific comparisons demonstrating the superiority of your approach. I doubt that this has happened. You could dispel that by showing your work. Let's start with your comparison of your program and that of Eureqa. Please show us how your program does symbolic regression better than Eureqa. And then PyEvolve. And DEAP. And PyGP. Your claim implies that you've already taken this step, so all I'm asking for is that you show us what you must already have in hand.

Others have already asked for a similar comparison concerning the TSP. I'd be interested in that, too. I asked Bill Dembski to make his criticism of GAs stick when considering the TSP back in 1997, and so far as I know, he has never even attempted a discussion in general that focuses on the TSP. Can you do better?


A fly has more intelligence than an unintelligent expert system and such, yet your operational definition for intelligence apparently requires a fly to be more intelligent than an experienced human physician.

Yes, you have quoted me.

But you haven't quoted me saying anything like what you claimed I said, so I have no clue why you even bothered making that post.

And that last bit... Are you not bright enough to parse a statement that you have not correctly understood what I was saying, since you persist in attributing to me stances I've never taken?

I warned you that you were making unfair/unrealistic comparisons.  I'm not at all surprised that the discussion did not go as you expected.

Date: 2012/11/07 23:02:35, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Now we're back to the usual condemnations based on the opinions of forum-trolls and extremely biased individuals, instead of providing a better experimentable mechanism to explain how "intelligent cause" works.

Date: 2012/11/07 23:25:38, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,23:15)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,23:02)
Now we're back to the usual condemnations based on the opinions of forum-trolls and extremely biased individuals, instead of providing a better experimentable mechanism to explain how "intelligent cause" works.

And while Gary has time to spew falsehoods about what other people have said, he doesn't have time to do anything towards showing that his program is superior to evolutionary computation in any scientifically productive aspect, nor to show that he has any basis for the claim that his program might "solve" the TSP, thereby demonstrating that P=NP and providing the single greatest advance in computing since Turing thought about what he could do with an infinite paper tape. It's my opinion that Gary doesn't do any of the productive things that he might be doing along the lines of backing up his claims because he either knows he's spewing falsehoods or because he knows that's well outside his capabilities.

And here we go again comparing nonintelligent algorithms to one that has to be in order to produce intelligent causation events.  I'm maybe best off to just ignore them, while waiting for someone to at least attempt to meet the burden of proof that here requires a more scientifically viable causation mechanism, for us to experiment with.

Science is no longer about answering questions people have.  It's all about making excuses for not having any answers.

Date: 2012/11/08 15:58:51, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
That was a good question to ask them keiths!  And ironically I did not bother responding to the usual insults, to instead spent some time catching up on other theory related work, including better piecing together the Introduction to the booklet version of the theory (classroom workbook).  This will help provide a coherent answer to your question.

Considering how the text of theory is still being ignored, I'll have to post the Introduction here:


Introduction – Intelligence, Intelligent Cause

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, a nonrandom force guided self-assembly  process whereby an intelligent entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in levels of increasingly complex organization producing self-similar entities systematically in their own image, likeness. As in a fractal, multiple designs are produced by an algorithm producing emergent fractal-similar designs at the next size scale (atom -> molecule -> cell -> multicellular).



Large arrows show this emergent causative pathway from behavior of matter (a Behavioral Cause) and intelligence from intelligence (an Intelligent Cause). The last arrow to Multicellular Intelligence indicates a predicted sudden event scientifically witnessed by the fossil record known as the Cambrian Explosion which will be covered in a section of its own. Shown in the lower half of the illustration is a simplified block-flow diagram of the same cognitive/intelligence system  that is at each level of the progression shown above it.

Successful designs remain in the biosphere’s interconnected collective (RNA/DNA) memory to help keep going the billions year old cycle of life. We are the result of a molecular learning process that keeps itself going through time by replicating previous contents of genetic memory along with good (better than random) guesses what may work better in the next replication, children. Resulting cladogram shows a progression of adapting designs evidenced by the fossil record where never once was there not a predecessor of similar design (which can at times lead to entirely new function) present in memory for the descendant design to have come from.  

Behavior of matter is produced by electromagnetic force created atomic bonds and intermolecular interactions (covalent, polar covalent, van der Waals polar force, ionic, metallic, hydrogen) and follows the “laws of physics”. This is covered by Atomic Theory, which describes the atoms in the model’s particle system environment. Behavior of matter can only respond to exteroceptive stimuli one way, such as bonding with another molecule or not, therefore has two of four requirements for intelligence (but does not by itself qualify as intelligence). It is not possible to rule out intelligence at this behavior level, but with no scientific evidence existing for this the behavior of matter is assumed to not require intelligence to produce intelligence, the origin of intelligent life.



As in physics algorithms, there is a Time Step.  Each particle/entity in the virtual environment is something to CONTROL that is moved a small amount each time according to surrounding forces/conditions acting upon it.  What response to take in a given condition is stored in a memory that is addressed by sensory that produces a unique action response for each environmental situation the particle can encounter. Memory can be here thought of as a binary digital RAM or analog neural network that has in it a truth table to produce the behavior for each kind of atom.

For modeling purposes where a “Behavior” produces an emergent intelligence the behavior that created it can be thought of as being “all knowing” in the sense that the behavior is inherent, does not have to learn its responses.  A computer model then starts off with this behavior already in RAM or ROM and has no GUESS or CONFIDENCE included in the algorithm, as does intelligence.  Memory contents then never changes, in this model only a GUESS writes data to MEMORY.

Intelligence is not a lifeless mass responding to physical forces by drifting downstream, intelligence can do such things as decide to swim upstream instead. In a complete physics model where all matter obeys physical laws, intelligence is an emergent deterministic internal force inside (then living) things that “at will” becomes an outside force causing change in motion to matter around it.

Intelligent behavior results in an entity with the ability to self-learn.  The flowchart becomes:

 

Intelligence is here operationally defined by how it works: Intelligence is an autonomous sensory-feedback (confidence) guided sensory addressed memory system that through trial-and-error learns new successful actions to be taken in response to environmental conditions.  In addition to something to CONTROL and MEMORY there must be one or more CONFIDENCE levels gauging failure or success of its motor actions towards reaching the goal and a way to GUESS motor actions when a successful response does not yet exist.  A good-guess is based upon existing knowledge.  A random-guess is the last resort and only has to be "random" to the intelligence.  For example where one must produce "random numbers" for another to guess they may use their phone number, which to them is not a random string of numbers, but to the other person who does not know their phone number it is a random string of numbers.  What is most important for something to be "random" is that the intelligence perceives it as such.

Confidence gauges whether it is getting closer to its goal or not.  In0/Out0 is a 4 state (count of 0-3) or more analog signal that recalls confidence level which increases each time the action worked, decreases when it failed, upon reaching 0 a Guess is taken. In a most simple chemotaxis system Guess and Motor are combined, changing motor direction produces a tumble/guess where to go next.  Only a single memory location is then required.

We know when we need to take a guess, or have an action response we are confident will work.  To a newborn baby, almost everything is a new experience. No memory at all of what to do is then sensed by Out0 being 0 which then causes a guess to be taken.  Responses that work are stored with increasing confidence, for as long as it keeps working, but confidence level does not need to increase past 3 for a good model. In bacteria the interoceptive sensors would simply be metabolic pathway molecules reporting motor condition back to the sensory end of the system to provide time delay that through Confidence being restored by that action switches motor back to swimming after tumble has been completed.

There should always be an easily recognizable circuit where each part works with others in a certain way.  This includes motors/muscles where there are expected to be two connections to the memory/brain.  The input connects to the data action outputs of a Random Access Memory controlling it.  The output is a sensory feedback signal to RAM addressing that adds (usually subconscious) awareness of the muscle action.  This sensory output can be from other sensors not directly connected to, such as touch sensors on skin that “feel” muscles moving or eye sensing travel direction.  Without at least indirect sensory feedback of motor actions addressing RAM the system has no way to know whether the motor has in turn produced the expected action, or not.

Although not a circuit requirement (as in the four above) there should be the production of regular detectable synchronized cycles, as the algorithm/system keeps repeating the one thought at a time process.  Where these cycles are no longer present then the intelligence is nonfunctional.

Where a system is missing one or more requirements we have a system that may appear to be intelligent but would only qualify as a protointelligent behavior.  This is true where the sensor(s) connect directly to the motors in a way that keeps the system on course, but does not learn how to control itself.  There must be a memory system between sensors and motors being controlled.  An example so simple it is almost cheating is the E.coli chemotaxis system where chemoreceptors address a single memory location that increases or decreases according to the amount of chemical being sensed, and when it is going the wrong way tumbles to try another direction.

Being self-learning, given enough time, intelligence will produce the next emergent level of intelligence when it learns how to achieve it.  Large numbers of rudimentary intelligences are predicted to have a tendency to spontaneously produce easily detectable and measurable emergent intelligence at the next level.  No computer code is needed, entities learn how to on their own.  Demonstrating this intelligent cause/causation would require many intelligent entities with rudimentary intelligence which self-assemble (at higher complexity is also called self-organize) to produce an emergent intelligence, much the same way a molecular genome produces a living cell, or living cells produced us.

Because of atom by atom computing being too memory intensive to computer model a large volume of matter, macromolecules can be approximated in the next level above atoms where it is no longer an atom by atom particle system physics problem, there are instead (combination of atoms) molecules each with unique behavior that can be summed up as a unique single entity (in the same way as classic Argon particle system describes all argon atoms but instead as molecular binding/reaction site dynamics of all its atoms combined). Macromolecules next self-assemble to form cells, which likewise can also be modeled at the next level by just modeling the cellular detail where a muscle cells are a regular spherical shape that shortens in length during contraction. And that can next be taken another step as is demonstrated by the Intelligence Design Lab where the behavior of many sensors and neurons/synapse is summed up to form the brain that connects to muscle cells that control muscles that can also send dirt particles flying or (as is the case in the Lab) simply propel it on a flat surface without disturbing anything. It is not necessary to start at the atomic level we only need to properly sum up one level to the next to produce a representative model. We must also keep in mind that with a computer it is easy to model a perfect memory that never forgets. In some ways the intelligence may be too perfect to be biologically possible, but at least it is easy to achieve that perfection, here made possible by the reliability of computer RAM to hold data

Reciprocal causation brings all of our complex intelligence related behaviors back to the behavior of matter where it's basic physics, that begins with common particle systems such as for modeling Argon (and other) atoms on a parallel processing GPU. Here all argon atoms are alike, as well as helium, carbon and all of the other elements and their isotopes. This regular atomic structure becomes the fundamental starting point for models like this where atoms combine to form molecules, molecules combine to form cells, and cells combine to produce multicellular organisms.

The reciprocal causation pathway goes from one level to the next but not directly from brain to matter, because just thinking about digging a hole in the ground does not propel virtual soil particles through air. There is first a neural connection between brain and muscle cells, then a neural feedback connection from the muscle cells back to the brain. After the muscle cells successfully receive this signal to contract it next has to convert that signal into a pulling "force" by powering its internal motor protein molecules, and like any other motor it needs energy to make it move on command and where that has run out there will be no digging either because it will then be too weak to move. There is no force applied to the digging limb until the molecular level systems have actually produced muscle force, to apply force to the limb accelerating soil particles into the air to dig a hole in an otherwise perfectly flat environment.

For sake of theory, “consciousness” is considered to be in addition to intelligence, otherwise the most rudimentary forms of intelligence and even simple algorithm generated computer models of intelligent processes would have to be expected to be conscious of their existing inside of a personal computer.  It is not possible to rule-out electronic or algorithmic consciousness existing, therefore even though it is not expected to exist in a computer model it is still possible that any functioning intelligence system is somehow conscious of their existence.  In either case, consciousness is not a requirement for intelligence, and here must be considered to be in addition to intelligence.

http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

Date: 2012/11/08 17:00:19, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 08 2012,16:14)
The only thing I'd like to see clarified is the "Ability to take a GUESS". Is the use of UC letters in "guess" of any particular significance? A higher order kind of guess, not just a wet finger in the air to guess which way the wind blows?

The rest is kindergarten stuff.

The theory has a separate section for each intelligence level, with examples of how a guess is accomplished by each.  A quick answer would be:

Molecular Intelligence:  Transpositions.

Cellular Intelligence: Tumbling.

Multicellular Intelligence: Induced neural response change.

Algorithmic Intelligence: Random generator.

Electronic Intelligence: Zener diode noise into RAM motor Data In pins.

I'm not sure what you mean by "use of UC letters" other than that being part of the RNA alphabet.

Date: 2012/11/08 17:05:11, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2012,16:55)
Where is the memory in a bacteria?

From theory:

Quote
REQUIREMENT #2 of 4 – SENSORY ADDRESSABLE MEMORY

E.coli senses chemoeffector gradients in temporal fashion (recall series of readings/conditions back in time) by comparing current concentrations to those encountered over the past few seconds of travel, a single element reversible methylation temporal memory, to navigate its environment.

Cellular (and molecular intelligence) can include “plasmid exchange” memories which is a very useful form of communication between members of a bacterial colony where all share tiny circular loops of genetic information, mostly only share with its own kind.  When one finds a useful solution to a given environmental situation all others around soon know it ahead of time.  The entire colony of bacteria cells functions as a single organism.  In plasmid exchange cells conjugate, bump into another then wait for plasmids they do not have yet to be copied/learned then look for another to conjugate with.  To a cell, some plasmids can be like a harmful disabling/traumatizing parasite.

Only germline cells that divide to become egg and sperm cells must accurately copy the full genetic memory.  After germline cells fuse (fertilization) they begin to modify their genome as much as is necessary to achieve differentiation into a specialized cell. It is here changing in morphology in response to its environment to be able to survive one cellular lifetime.  During development of the organism many kinds of cells (muscle and skin cells, neurons, etc.) with many cellular intelligence behaviors are produced by the germline cells which remain the same through time to produce the eggs and sperm of another generation.

See:
An overview of E. coli chemotaxis, Parkinson Lab, Department Of Biology – University Of Utah
http://chemotaxis.biology.utah.edu/Parkins....is.html

Date: 2012/11/08 17:25:23, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
I just noticed that the reference link to the Parkinson Lab overview is down.  Since it is a nice page I'll wait before removing it from the text.  You should be able to easily find more detail by searching with keywords "e.coli chemotaxis" then focus on the motor switching circuit, here the one bit "memory".

Date: 2012/11/08 18:16:40, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
I just put this one on-deck so it's ready to go at any time.  

Evanescence - What You Want

The conspiracy (as opposed to scientific) theorists at least have perfect timing!  

Date: 2012/11/09 03:45:18, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 08 2012,20:20)
Gary seems to think that he can post a bunch of claims, make excuses as to why he shouldn't be held accountable to support or retract them, and that they will eventually be forgotten. This is a time-honored antievolutionist tactic, after all. Who could be bothered to dig back through the forum to see whether he's left things hanging? The answer for that is a periodic posting of a summary of such items, to make sure that folks tuning in late are apprised of just what sort of correspondent they have at hand. And so I give you the first posting of the...

Periodically Posted List of Abandoned or Unsupported Claims: Gary Gaulin Edition

1. Citric Acid Cycle Description

The claim

           
Quote

Control Of Krebs Cycle By Molecular Intelligence

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.

At any stage through the assembly cycle a molecule of proper fit may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby self-assembly interaction to where it fits. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.[11][12]

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it. A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.


The request for documentation

Response

Status: Abandoned. Bizarre, false-to-fact description of the citric acid cycle is left unretracted as if it supported Gaulin's concept of "molecular intelligence".


There is no other place that I know of where this is documented.  And that is what a theory is for, to explain things that have never ever been explained before. Demanding documentation that does not exist, instead of providing evidence to the contrary, is here highly unscientific.

 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 08 2012,20:20)
2. Gaulin Code v. Evolutionary Computation

The claim

           
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,06:45)

The theory is for modeling reality. Current EA's and GA's are baby-toys in comparison. Best way to prove that, is for you to try it for yourself.


(Emphasis added.)

           
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,22:21)

[...] It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys. [...]


(Emphasis added.)

The request for documentation

Response

Status: Abandoned. Complete refusal to divulge the substance of the comparisons that Gaulin claims he already has made.


You are again demanding documentation that does not yet exist.  And I am entitled to my honest opinion of how "realistic" EA'a and GA's are.  That's why I never found them very scientifically interesting, and instead experimented with simple cognitive models that can outperform them.

 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 08 2012,20:20)
3. Gaulin Code, the Traveling Salesman Problem, and Computational Complexity Theory

The claim

         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,05:39)

I have no doubt that it would easily solve the Traveling Salesman Problem. [...]


Request for documentation

Response

Status: Abandoned. After making ignorant and bizarre claims about computational complexity theory ("It's a collection of AI techniques"), Gaulin decided to stop responding to requests to demonstrate these claims.

You sure like to nitpick.  I gave you an example of a fly (intelligence) that just keeps bashing into a window until it knocks itself senseless and never gets out, even where there is a nearby exit.  If that is not utterly being unable to find any solution at all to the Traveling Salesman Problem then you tell me how well it did at finding a solution to the problem after it is one more dead bug on the windowsill that made it no further than that.

Date: 2012/11/09 04:39:15, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 08 2012,20:20)
Status: Abandoned. After making ignorant and bizarre claims about computational complexity theory ("It's a collection of AI techniques"), Gaulin decided to stop responding to requests to demonstrate these claims.


And on that point, although I agree that I could have been more precise, if you look again at exactly what I said then it should be more obvious that I was calling attention to what I wanted you to notice in the Wikipedia link (all the nonintelligent AI techniques that are in it).

   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,18:49)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,18:03)
Come on, Gary. Just admit that you don't know the least thing about computational complexity theory and you won't have to make up gibberish like that. Hint: it helps if the gibberish at least has some keywords from the topic at hand. Yours doesn't.

It's a collection of AI techniques, many of which I have already modeled/tested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._theory

That is all well and good for someone new to AI but it is not "cognitive science".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......science

My opinion on this has not changed.  The unfair and unrealistic comparisons only lead to your being easily fooled by unrealistic nonsense.  You are therefore putting plastic artificial flowers under the microscope in order to support your biological conclusions.

Date: 2012/11/09 05:07:18, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 09 2012,04:32)
Why don't you take the TSP challenge Gary? It's from 2006 but you'd be the first ID supporter to attempt it AFAIK.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....gn.html

     
Quote
I will announce the winners (if any) in a week’s time, and also will present the answer that Evolution came up with. I’m interested in proposed solutions from any and all (you don’t have to be in the ID camp), but am especially interested in solutions by ID advocates, since y’all are saying that the solution is already implicitly defined in the statement of the problem (finding shortest connected networks).


Support your claim or continue to be laughed at. TBH that'll happen either way but at least this way you get to keep a little dignity.


I have far more important things to do than be muddled by another math based problem that does not pertain to "intelligence" or "intelligent cause".  The power of your laughter is now in my favor anyway, because in the real scientific arena if that's all you got then you were already defeated.

Quote
I’m giving Intelligent Design proponents (and everyone else!) a chance to actually Design something!

As you recall, my algorithm involves finding Steiner Trees, the shortest networks of straight-line segments connecting a given collection of fixed points. These networks may include additional variable “Steiner Points” where segments may meet.

If I were you then I would be focusing on the scientific problems that this Theory of Intelligent Design presents to your camp.

Date: 2012/11/09 07:29:48, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 09 2012,05:22)
..... Or you lied to us when you told us that you had already compared them?...........

I already told you the theory is for experimenting with intelligence and studying intelligent cause.  Therefore your other demands of it are still totally irrelevant.

If the best that you and you know who can do is endlessly present the same worn out semantic arguments while trying to claim that I am a liar then I would be a fool to waste my time entertaining you while you try to drag me down with insults.  You did not even have the scientific candor to study the theory before commenting on it, and instead pretended you understood the whole thing when you were in fact so clueless you trashed a theory that was not even the Theory of Intelligent Design.  You have no idea how much of a kick in the face that actually is, bully…

Date: 2012/11/09 08:46:21, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
It’s also an insult to try making it seem that I do not already know that the Traveling Salesman Problem is one of many thousands of ways to test for intelligence. But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself are not good enough for the ones who demand I beat their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to. They only care about tests which will at the same time prove that a pocket calculator or simple math algorithm is more intelligent than a human. In science like this, such tests are simply unacceptable. And I am not going to play games with ones who demand that they be allowed to cheat.

Date: 2012/11/09 12:36:34, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 09 2012,09:59)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,06:46)
It’s also an insult to try making it seem that I do not already know that the Traveling Salesman Problem is one of many thousands of ways to test for intelligence. But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself are not good enough for the ones who demand I beat their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to. They only care about tests which will at the same time prove that a pocket calculator or simple math algorithm is more intelligent than a human. In science like this, such tests are simply unacceptable. And I am not going to play games with ones who demand that they be allowed to cheat.

"But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself..."  (my emphasis)

Gary, what is the it that you're referring to?

The "it" is the intelligence in the simulation being monitored/tested to find out how well it's doing:


https://sites.google.com/site.......een.png

In this example is the two lobed brain configuration, with the right lobe now active.  At this moment in time it's taking two good guesses based upon what was working before.  Green line is showing it's having little problem learning how to keep itself fed, but all indications are that it would greatly benefit from having touch/taste buds to feel around with it's mouth.

Date: 2012/11/09 23:12:35, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 09 2012,20:10)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,08:46)
[...] But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself are not good enough for the ones who demand I beat their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to. [...]

Wow, Gary tells yet another whopper. I guess Gary didn't actually read my paper that I gave him the link to a while back.

Published article on evolving effective strategies for movement
     
Quote
Abstract— Even the simplest of organisms may exhibit low-level intelligent behaviors in their directed movements, such as in foraging. We used the Avida digital evolution research platform to explore the evolution of movement strategies in a model environment with a single local resource that diffuses to produce a gradient, which organisms have the ability to follow. Three common strategies that evolved, Cockroach, Drunkard, and Climber, exhibit how both environmental constraints and historical contingency play a role in the emergence of intelligent behaviors. The evolved programs are also suitable for use in controllers on robots.

     
Quote
Another characteristic of intelligence is the ability to generalize a strategy and use it in a new situation. An evolved Climber could successfully move to resource peaks set in new locations (see Figure 6).

   
Quote

V. CONCLUSIONS

In testing the capability of evolutionary computation to produce effective methods utilizing movement strategies to intelligently exploit spatially-distributed resources, our results show that such strategies do emerge and that in about 12% of shorter runs and in 80% of longer runs the final movement strategy used by the majority of the population at the end of the run is in the class of optimal response for our environment, that of gradient ascent.

What excuse will Gary come up with this time?

I ran across that paper before while searching the web for information on biological intelligence.  I honestly found it uninteresting and unconvincing due to problems which include: No testable operational definition for intelligence. No systematic method qualifying intelligence which may exist at any level, i.e. multicellular, cellular, molecular, etc. No schematics showing biologically plausible circuits that are supposedly being “evolved”. Rehash of similar EA work I have seen before that makes assumptions which might not be true, such as altruism requiring special circuit/circuitry.  It’s also not useful for explaining how intelligent causation works, therefore showing one paper like this does not impress me.

But seeing you brought up the topic, here are some of my biology related favorites which I did like enough to save the links to, so that you can see what I do like to study. And it starts off with the link to the Parkinson Lab Overview of Chemotaxis page that was down (which led to even more accusations of dishonesty) but it's now back online!

http://chemotaxis.biology.utah.edu/Parkins....is.html
http://www.pnas.org/content....emental
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online.....16.html
http://www.pnas.org/content....63.full
http://www.pnas.org/content....t....11
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........2691949
http://www.plosbiology.org/article....0040138
http://www.jneurosci.org/content....ull.pdf
http://www.ini.ethz.ch/~conrad....imp.PDF
http://www.ini.ethz.ch/~conrad....imp.PDF
http://biomimetic.pbworks.com/f....so....son.pdf
http://www.frontiersin.org/neural_........ull
http://www.jneurosci.org/content....ull.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........2151524
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online.....e....n1
http://ec.europa.eu/informa....e_2.pdf
http://www.insectscience.org/10.58......-58.pdf
http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article....1000879
http://www.eyedesignbook.com/index.h....ex.html
http://www.hpc.unm.edu/~karen.....326.pdf
http://www.jneurosci.org/content....96.full
http://www.jneurosci.org/content....57.long
http://learnmem.cshlp.org/content....11.full
http://www.cell.com/neuron.....0010731
http://ac.els-cdn.com/S089662....825a6e6
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........2677239
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........2571118
http://www.jneurosci.org/content....df+html
http://www.mindcreators.com/2DInsec....tor.htm
http://www.mindcreators.com/2DInsec....tor.htm
http://www.izhikevich.org/publica....els.pdf
http://www.wessnitzer.net/academi....int.pdf
http://www.c-s-p.org/Flyers.....ple.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content....95.full
http://www.pnas.org/content....35.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed.....6600853
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.......ina.pdf
http://www.cis.rit.edu/people.....p1.html
http://archopht.jamanetwork.com/article....=413723
http://vision.arc.nasa.gov/personn....nn....m
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki.......ception
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin....Doc.pdf
http://web.mit.edu/bcs........-5.html
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content....93.full
http://web.mit.edu/bcs........25.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........2430089
http://www.journalofvision.org/content....nt....6
http://www.newscientist.com/article....dn15068
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites......6129892
http://www.plosbiology.org/article....0030396
http://www.world-science.net/exclusi....frm.htm
http://www.pnas.org/content....ull.pdf
http://jcb.rupress.org/content....df+html
http://jcs.biologists.org/content....65.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........1562375
http://thesis.library.caltech.edu/2293.......sis.pdf
http://jb.asm.org/content....56.full
http://www.pnas.org/content....89.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........MC94809
http://www.plosbiology.org/article....entner1
http://regulondb.ccg.unam.mx/index.j....dex.jsp
http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article....35.g001
http://www.cellmigration.org/science....x.shtml
http://www.extension.org/pages......odgrass
http://www.pc.rhul.ac.uk/staff......1_3.pdf
http://www.neurobiologie.fu-berlin.de/menzel.....CNc.pdf
http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb17.......homberg
http://ndeaa.jpl.nasa.gov/ndeaa-p....-99.pdf
http://bioteaching.wordpress.com/2010.......ligence
http://www.neurobiologie.fu-berlin.de/beebrai....lt.html
http://www.biolchem.ucla.edu/labs.......sc.html
http://www.cns.nyu.edu/~msl.......nce.pdf
http://www.frontiersin.org/systems........ull

Date: 2012/11/09 23:43:01, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 09 2012,20:16)
Gary, in your "theory" you say:

"Cellular (and molecular intelligence) can include “plasmid exchange” memories which is a very useful form of communication between members of a bacterial colony where all share tiny circular loops of genetic information, mostly only share with its own kind.  When one finds a useful solution to a given environmental situation all others around soon know it ahead of time."  (my emphasis)

That wording doesn't make sense to me, and what do you mean by "ahead of time"? Ahead of time for what? Maybe I'm misunderstanding but it looks like you're saying that the "solution" is known by the entire colony before the "solution" is shared with the entire colony.





.

And example of that are plasmids found locally in one area but not others which allow digestion of nylon, detoxification of toxins/pesticides (where in the gut of insects the insect become resistant to pesticides used by the farmer in his particular field) such that bacteria (or other organism that carries them) are all set to join the others in feasting on what would otherwise not be edible or would make them sick, without first having acquired the plasmid upon their arrival there.

I'll see what I can do to improve that part.  I agree it could use some elaboration.

Date: 2012/11/10 06:10:44, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 10 2012,00:29)

That's pretty brazen, Gary. You now say that you had full knowledge of my paper, and yet you still claimed things that are false to fact.


My work requires far more than "movement strategies" and artificially "evolved programs".

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 10 2012,00:29)
Your original statement:
Quote
[...] their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to.

You might not like my work, but it does directly address the topic that you claim it did not.

And the "even have to" is quite egregiously false to fact.

Now you claim new false things.

Gary:
Quote
No testable operational definition for intelligence.

Paper:
Quote
If intelligence is taken to be the increased frequency of emission of adaptive behavior under novel stimuli, as is seen in studies of animal behavior, Cockroach either does not qualify as such, since all stimuli yield the same behavior, or may be seen as a small relative improvement on a random walk, since it does exploit the conditions implicit in a bounded grid for movement.

Not only did I provide a commonly-used testable operational definition, I evaluated evolved strategies against it. Refer above to the quote about testing Climber Avidians in novel environments in addition to the quote just previous.


Wikipedia has a list of some of the common definitions:

Quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ligence

The definition of intelligence is controversial. Groups of scientists have stated the following:

from "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" (1994), an editorial statement by fifty-two researchers:
A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.[5]

from "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" (1995), a report published by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association:
Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person's intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions, and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen, somewhat different, definitions.[6][7]

Alfred Binet: Judgment, otherwise called "good sense," "practical sense," "initiative," the faculty of adapting one's self to circumstances ... auto-critique.[8]

David Wechsler: The aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment.[9]

Lloyd Humphreys: "...the resultant of the process of acquiring, storing in memory, retrieving, combining, comparing, and using in new contexts information and conceptual skills."[10]

Cyril Burt: Innate general cognitive ability[11]

Howard Gardner: To my mind, a human intellectual competence must entail a set of skills of problem solving — enabling the individual to resolve genuine problems or difficulties that he or she encounters and, when appropriate, to create an effective product — and must also entail the potential for finding or creating problems — and thereby laying the groundwork for the acquisition of new knowledge.[12]

Linda Gottfredson: The ability to deal with cognitive complexity.[13]

Sternberg & Salter: Goal-directed adaptive behavior.[14]

Reuven Feuerstein: The theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability describes intelligence as "the unique propensity of human beings to change or modify the structure of their cognitive functioning to adapt to the changing demands of a life situation."[15]


The operational definition you gave is another fuzzy definition with no systematic way to reliably qualify a system as being intelligent or not. It might be good enough for your peers and for a science paper but the theory I have been working on needs to be absolutely precise, with no generalizations or uncertainty that in your case could not even definitively conclude whether a cockroach is intelligent or not.

What I did find very useful in regards to cockroach intelligence is in this excellent video that demonstrated what I was studying in science papers:

John Bender and Roy Ritzmann - Central Control of Insect Locomotion

The circuit schematic in the Intelligence Design Lab (see earlier reply) uses the same Left/Right and Forward/Reverse system that is described in the video.

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 10 2012,00:29)

Gary:
Quote
Rehash of similar EA work I have seen before that makes assumptions which might not be true, such as altruism requiring special circuit/circuitry.


Yeah, Gary; show me where in my paper I say anything about an altruism circuit. Go ahead, I can wait. And will wait forever, since your claim is, once again, a false one.

As for "rehash", it is certainly possible that I missed a citation that I should have found. Please substantiate your claim by providing the full bibliographic references of  uncited and earlier evolutionary computation papers whose topic is the evolution of effective methods for movement of an agent relative to a resource gradient. (You should pay attention to authors in the "et al.", since I'm part of "et al." in the Grabowski et al. 2008 paper.)

I'm sure that there's some common word that describes someone who over and over prefers to tell falsehoods rather than truth.


You sure do like to condemn.  But whatever, here is a paper on "Evolution of Altruism" that was a big sensation to others in the ID controversy but when I saw a special "Share token" circuit I quickly lost interest even though it was still a little bit interesting from a robotics standpoint:

http://www.plosbiology.org/article....15.g001

From what I saw in a forum (not sure which one(s)) where the paper was applauded, none questioned whether it was truly representative of biology or anything even evolved. It looked to me like a circuit that was specially designed to artificially develop an analogy to altruism (therefore it did) but is not the real thing. All that the promoters of the Darwinian paradigm needed to see were the keywords "Evolution of Altruism" and of course they were all excited by the paper.

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 10 2012,00:29)
As for various other points, my paper wasn't aimed at doing whatever it is that you think that you are doing. I think I was pretty clear about the aim of the paper:
Quote

Our interest requires a more open-ended approach than is often used in studies of computational intelligence. In most cases, there is a specific function of interest to be accomplished, and the means or process by which that function is acquired is of less interest than the fact of either solving, or approximately solving, it. Instead, in looking at the evolution of intelligent behavior, our primary interest is in finding out by what means less capable agents give rise to those able to appropriately exploit prevailing conditions.

It is still a paper whose topic is intelligent foraging, where the digital organisms "had to" forage in order to gain relative advantage over other digital organisms, contrary to your false claim.

Where are the critters with a mouth, antennae, eyes, etc. and their circuit diagrams which show confidence levels needed to gauge their overall state of mind and success while foraging?

It's all that was not included which made it another EA paper that likely does not very well represent the reality of how living things work or "evolved". You say they are are intelligently foraging but the paper does not even show them foraging for anything, and all else I need to see for it to be credible. Graphs are here unacceptable. And for origin of life research, I have no idea how you would be able to step-wise go from a particle system that models atoms/matter to an intelligent living thing with artificially "evolved programs".  But at least your paper has excellent grammar.

Date: 2012/11/10 11:18:49, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Actually, quality hit-wise, the computer model and included theory is doing better by being published at Planet Source Code than it would in an average science journal. And PSC does not care about typos and a little bad grammar, or has a policy to immediately reject the theory because of what it is. I also still have the growing page-length problem that now fills at least half an issue, cannot afford publishing fees, more illustrations are needed to walk the biased (who don’t care about source code and such) through this, and so on..

All in all, I’m probably better off leading the undermining of the pompous part of the scientific political system that literally shuts-out self-learners like me with rules which only allow the academically entitled (or corporations) to receive funding, and credit where due. So as with my little low-powered W I Don’t Know radio station that helped make big things happen I’ll just keep transmitting on the WWW until something really-big comes to me, that makes it worth my while to take what I now have to the next level. From all the comments from the young on YouTube about music/culture having become boring and they wish they were back in time, my taking this newest (after Grunge) Seattle based culture-war up a few more notches might be just what the artists need to bring back the good clean fun of the last culture-war I was stuck in the middle of, that I now miss the best of. So hopefully none here mind the mayhem, too much, or literally go crazy from it!

Date: 2012/11/11 00:11:39, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 10 2012,11:39)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 10 2012,11:18)

Actually, quality hit-wise, the computer model and included theory is doing better by being published at Planet Source Code than it would in an average science journal.


In what way?
     
Quote
And PSC does not care about typos and a little bad grammar, or has a policy to immediately reject the theory because of what it is.


What publications have that policy then?


List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even though I would (just to see what happens) not hesitate to submit something that I felt was ready to go, this really is a lot of theory that takes more than a quick paper to explain.  It also does not help to have half the scientific community spitting on the journal, then canceling their subscriptions in protest, for allowing ID to be taken seriously.  Especially after seeing it daring to suggest that their Evolutionary Algorithms could somehow be an imperfect model of reality.

What is already proudly published at Planet Source Code is for now, an excellent way to see what the theory looks like in science.  It's there a how-to for self-learners who only need that.  And top journals seriously do not want to get stuck in the middle of something that protesting scientists should have resolved somewhere else first, like here.  So here, I am...

Date: 2012/11/11 12:50:33, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
I have to add that an EA not needing to forage for nutrition is because it doesn’t have to be there, for the algorithm to “evolve” something. Adding foraging to an EA at least gets closer to reality so job well done there. It’s just that in this theory there is another algorithm entirely.

When Avida was the newest rage in the forums even though it did not hold my interest for long I still only had good things to say about it after trying it out. Might say part of my EA/GA learning experience, that I’m glad was there to download and run. Best for all to know how a EA/GA works than not.  It’s just that an EA is not in this model where there must be what there is where two of the four requirements are found met by the behavior of matter for molecular intelligence that next emerges, which runs on metabolic cycles which require feeding on something. Without it, the algorithm does not work as shown in the Intelligent Causation illustration. In fact, it does not work at all. This is also what is needed to gauge success rate, how intelligence is here detected and gauged, so are working without what you need in the first place.

The kind of paper and/or video the theory needs just happens to need electrodes in the central complex of a giant cockroach that is then given a zap through just to see what happens when stimulated. That helps explain the system being modeled in the Intelligence Design Lab that in the two lobe configuration ends up with both lobes connecting into two Confidence level subsystem central complex. Programmatically zapping it would cause the same thing to happen. So of course that video had to be in the favorites links.

I must include the Blackawton bee experiment was so inspiring it led to BobaBot-Bee (Boba a TalkRational troll once around with childish impishness that makes them inspire that) thinking that led to the final design of the critter in the Intelligence Design Lab.  

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/site.......s.xhtml

Also programmed a version that sets up the feeders:



Since it only sees the feeders sideways in a 2 dimension flat-land, it seems like a little stuck in a mirror-room confused.  Confidence goes from (having fun chasing an easy feeder to find) 2.7 to a half unsure where to go 1.3 confidence level.  It still figures it out well enough to get around, which made it worth uploading a .zip with BlackawtonBeesLab1.exe (should be dated 08/07/2011 9:04 AM)  

https://sites.google.com/site.......ab1.zip

Regardless of their bee paper’s final conclusions being arguable, the Theory of Intelligent Design none the less found the data gathering experiment very useful:
 
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content....t_el_86

Just in case backup link:
http://www.yuddy2046.net/web_doc....056.pdf

This theory needs papers and such that are in a whole other area of science, where it’s best to keep things as simple as that, where possible.  

It works with what you’re surprised it even can. See 0:37 into the immensely popular (in US) public education program for another example:  

PBS Dinosaur Train theme song    

Science is not going to stop over that either.  So it’s here really best to lighten up, and enjoy the novel science show. I’ll soon be back with more to address newest questions, to hopefully help make this an even brighter Sunday reply for you as well, to start off another interesting new science week with.  

An EA paper not working for this theory is not at all to be taken personally. It’s just a whole other theory with whole other model for all here to experiment with too. I would rather you be skeptical then find out that with all considered it's not all that bad, for a Theory of Intelligent Design.

Date: 2012/11/12 08:12:01, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 11 2012,05:58)
Gary, I'm still trying to figure out how your "theory" is different (if at all) from the so-called "ID inference" that the IDiots at UD and elsewhere have been pushing. That's why I've asked you particular questions and why I have more questions pending in my head. The more you're asked to provide answers and/or something testable and the more you say, the more confusing, non-testable, and unsubstantiated your "theory" appears to be. The bottom line seems to be that you're saying "intelligence" itself is intelligent.


The quick answer is like I was explaining earlier about design inferences and such trying to solve the scientific problem in the reverse direction of my method which begins with the most simplified cognitive model for any intelligence. In a design inference there is no beforehand knowledge of the circuit that must be there for this other level of behavior to be intelligent. My search began at our human level brain that we personally experience, to other levels of intelligence necessary for it/us to work, that then goes on into the behavior of matter from which we are expressed. 

       
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 11 2012,05:58)
I think it was oldman... who suggested that you present the core parts of your "theory". I'll reiterate that and suggest that you present them a step at a time and focus on things that can be analyzed/tested/compared in such a way as to figure out if those parts have any merit.


We can easily compare illustrations showing core models. Here is the theory of ID:



And here is a typical EA/GA representative of the Darwinian theory model:
 


Do you see the very major differences?

Date: 2012/11/12 08:49:19, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 12 2012,08:17)
Gary your post is barely coherent.

Just so you know.

Here’s one to help explain the possible effects of your being spun around by the science of fractal similarity theory (needing one or two more chances) which somehow goes right though you like a breeze:

U2 - even better than the real thing

Did that make any sense to you?

Date: 2012/11/12 09:15:52, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2012,08:30)
Yes, I see the differences.

One describes actual things that are actually happening in the real world and was developed using a significant amount of evidence from observation and experiment.

The other does not describe real things.  It has no evidential support.
.........

I hope none actually expect me to feed that troll too. In this case they are essentially parroting old political slogans while clouding the issue with another pompous lecture.

It should be clear enough that there are two entirely different models, and they need way more than a brush-off to make the one for Intelligent Causation go away.

Date: 2012/11/12 12:10:26, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 12 2012,09:10)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,06:12)
           
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 11 2012,05:58)
Gary, I'm still trying to figure out how your "theory" is different (if at all) from the so-called "ID inference" that the IDiots at UD and elsewhere have been pushing. That's why I've asked you particular questions and why I have more questions pending in my head. The more you're asked to provide answers and/or something testable and the more you say, the more confusing, non-testable, and unsubstantiated your "theory" appears to be. The bottom line seems to be that you're saying "intelligence" itself is intelligent.


The quick answer is like I was explaining earlier about design inferences and such trying to solve the scientific problem in the reverse direction of my method which begins with the most simplified cognitive model for any intelligence. In a design inference there is no beforehand knowledge of the circuit that must be there for this other level of behavior to be intelligent. My search began at our human level brain that we personally experience, to other levels of intelligence necessary for it/us to work, that then goes on into the behavior of matter from which we are expressed. 

                     
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 11 2012,05:58)
I think it was oldman... who suggested that you present the core parts of your "theory". I'll reiterate that and suggest that you present them a step at a time and focus on things that can be analyzed/tested/compared in such a way as to figure out if those parts have any merit.


We can easily compare illustrations showing core models. Here is the theory of ID:



And here is a typical EA/GA representative of the Darwinian theory model:
 


Do you see the very major differences?

Well, I see a difference between the way you presented your "theory" and the "Darwinian theory model", but I can't say that I fully understand your "theory" and I don't think that the wording you used for the "Darwinian theory model" is accurate.

Trying to briefly word the concept of "Darwinian theory model" was never easy. In more detail: Even though Charles Darwin did not show a flowchart of the logic he was describing the theory he proposed had a "model" in it. From that came EA computer models with the GA computer model most representative of what he explained. There are Mutation and Selection variables, along with additional knowledge of genes and how they can be randomly mutated which Charles did not know about.

The text of a theory should have a "model" in it, which can next be coded to make a "computer model". If there is no model in the theory there is no computer model possible from it. I would then question whether it was really a theory. Could instead be a hypothesis therefore simply true/false with an experiment where results are best shown with something like a chart, not computer model. The theory the Discovery Institute long ago presented to Kathy Martin then later Judge Jones did not have a model in it, but that was then and this is now...

         
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 12 2012,09:10)
What I find myself thinking when I look at your "theory" is pretty much what I said before: That you're kinda sorta describing evolution, with intelligent thought and action thrown in, for example a feedback loop between the processes and results of adaptation/evolution (mutation, drift, variation, speciation, etc.) and environmental pressures/natural selection, but instead of it all being 'natural' or any of it being 'non-deterministic', 'random', or by 'chance' you're saying that it's guided by intelligence and deliberate actions (including or solely by guesses) within molecules and cells (and atoms?). Am I close?


In this theory, intelligence always has the ability to self-learn.  From the human brain to molecular intelligence (source of what you call "evolution") there is a learning curve, biologically physically "develops", but that's it.

Evolution is a concept from another model that makes even me dizzy trying to compare their variables. I once read (not sure where likely Wikipedia) that paradigms of theories are supposed to be this way, makes sense that they are.

You're here best off not to try making the other paradigm fit this one. You end up with generalizations for what might be seen happening in an intelligent population in an Intelligence Design Lab of the future but that still does not help explain how the model works, only complicates it.

     
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 12 2012,09:10)
I have another question:

How does extinction or extirpation fit into your "theory"?

In this theoretical model we get an Intelligence Design Lab where there would be foraging success of its molecular intelligence, which as a population can still keep foraging through time even though every once in a while a branch falls off of it. In this theory we ultimately see the wider biosphere sized picture that in reality might not have change much because of one lineage going extinct, or may, depending on what it is and how far along in development it was.

Date: 2012/11/12 12:58:27, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2012,12:18)
Again, the model of evolution works. It produces things that did not exist before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......antenna

What does your model do?

What it can do is model multiple levels of fractal similar emergent intelligences which combine/combined to form multicellular living such as ourselves. And I know for a fact that your "model of evolution" does not model that, that's for sure. Does not even have a model in it to qualify something as intelligent, therefore the best you get are fuzzy generalizations that evolution is intelligent with the rest left up to the imagination.

Date: 2012/11/12 13:15:55, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 12 2012,13:06)
Vote now:



Excellent reminder for me to mention that I'm here OWED one!
And still waiting..

Date: 2012/11/12 13:27:43, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2012,13:15)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,12:58)
What it can do is model multiple levels of fractal similar emergent intelligences which combine/combined to form multicellular living such as ourselves.

Well, go on then. Do that.

It's like this:

Quote
From:
Intelligence Design Lab description - at Planet Source Code

The computer model also provides a precise, testable and scientifically useful operational definition for "intelligent cause" where each of the three emergent levels can be individually modeled, with a model predicted to be possible that generates an intelligent causation event, now goal of further research and challenge for all.


The amount of scientific work ahead, is currently beyond your comprehension.

Date: 2012/11/13 05:23:42, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2012,15:51)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,13:27)
       
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2012,13:15)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,12:58)
What it can do is model multiple levels of fractal similar emergent intelligences which combine/combined to form multicellular living such as ourselves.

Well, go on then. Do that.

It's like this:

         
Quote
From:
Intelligence Design Lab description - at Planet Source Code

The computer model also provides a precise, testable and scientifically useful operational definition for "intelligent cause" where each of the three emergent levels can be individually modeled, with a model predicted to be possible that generates an intelligent causation event, now goal of further research and challenge for all.


The amount of scientific work ahead, is currently beyond your comprehension.

Then you are a suck-ass teacher.

I've taught kids who were in remedial math (arithmetic, not even algebra 1) to do chemistry formulas.

There are no poor students, only poor teachers.

Here's the thing.  Let's say that your theory is the greatest theory in the universe.  With it, man will conquer disease, the stars, and death itself.  

Yet you have done such a poor job explaining it, that no one can understand what you're on about.  No one can do anything with your theory because it's unintelligible gooblety gook.

THAT'S NOT OUR FAULT.  It's your fault.  If you can't answer the questions of the people here on this board, how can you possibly explain this to someone without a high school education?

As presented, it's useless.  As explained by you, it's useless.  It doesn't matter if it works or not, because you can't even describe it.  You can't show us how it works.  You can't show us it even does anything.

DO YOU GET IT NOW!?!?!?


I’m not a school teacher. If I were then I would likely have had to be fired by now. Probably just as well I'm not. But you can say my being helpful/useful has made me teacher’s pet. In this case I can be proud of that.

The Intelligent Causation model (that builds upon the 4 requirement cognitive model) covers all of science. For modeling purposes it works great with String Theory type thinking, where there is a dimension level of control on other dimensions that coexist with each other (describes how addressing works).In an earlier example where I was unsure from literature what the central complex of an insect brain is for just look at the cognitive model, which predicts it’s the confidence level Hedonic System (it consciously “feels”) with RAM addressing inputs where some are for feedback from motor muscles. You sure can’t do that with a GA, but this theory covers so many sciences it’s no problem at all.

Applying the theory to current subatomic theory we get origin of life by self-assembly. It works with current self-replicating RNA theories, where self-replicating RNA models are needed and welcomed. This also works with Creation Science, where all that is needed is this more artistic pointer showing where the miracles are at. Reciprocal causation (not shown here) goes the other way as well. In Creation Science that’s the 24/7 prayer pathway to our Creator. Without a pathway like this there is no purpose to prayer, no receiver to receive it. And there is the paradox of something intelligent having to learn, therefore is not “all knowing” where this theory indicates that’s at a whole other level above the molecular intelligence (that on its own learns over time how to develop into many novel morphological designs) such that the big as the universe behavior of matter has the all-knowing part.


https://sites.google.com/site.......ion.GIF

Being able to connect this much science makes a model that is useful to and gets added to Creation Science. What the Discovery Institute had did not have a model it borrowed/stole from what already existed in Creation Science, which not only presented separations issues, it made some Creation Scientists steaming mad. David Abel made sure I knew that, real good, but I could see what he was saying. There was a very real turf-war going on, because of the theory not having a model for Creation Science either. Some are in protest over DI theory for much the same reasons you and others here are.

Much like Metaphysics where it’s OK to include some philosophy/religion instead of forbidden as in scientific theory, this theory helps Creation Science become more scientifically serious to a scientist like you. Not only that, you now at least have to try keeping up with what Creationists are getting into these days, or you soon find yourself way more behind the science curve than you ever dreamed possible. This theory even develops a simple scientific lingo all its own, which has some scientists scratching their heads but that’s what being specific looks like. The words and phrases you are used to are not there. You must instead pay attention to “behavior of matter, molecular, cellular and multicellular” which all shift the conversation to another level systematically like the other, where required terminology remains the same.

What this theory accomplishes for Creation Science is easily welcomed by Creation Scientists and Creationists, even though it’s science you would think they have to hate. That’s only what happens when the Darwinian paradigm incompletely explains the evidence, and believing that there must be a better explanation than that is rewarded with a slap in the face. Science needs who yearn inside for something better, or it stops right there. Reasons for wanting to go past the Darwinian paradigm do not matter, after we all get there.

For some including myself this theory is a “destination” to somewhere less scientifically oppressive and depressing. This connects back to calling song conveniently already well in culture for a (what I of course received as scientific) revolution to take us somewhere better than where we were before, where I’m the science radio pirate who had/has to help figure out where that is and needed the Theory of Intelligent Design controversy so of course it took a long time to make it all gel from here:

4 Non Blondes - What's Up

At the Connecticut School of Broadcasting I had a teacher (radio name) Sebastian who explained how others love seeing underdogs win out in the end. And it just so happens that with us in this thread is Kathy Martin, who does not need to say anything for the unresolved public hearing to more or less go on, from here in this forum thread.

To make it even more scientifically challenging just like in science peer-review the “public hearing” method requires somehow putting what you have that is useful on the proverbial table to be judged. But judging must be left up to the ones the public hearing has to be for the people of District 6 she was elected to serve and for the good of all Kansas public schools. What you offer must be genuinely useful in gauging the scientific and educational merit of the Theory of Intelligent Design that is now on the table, from genuinely giving it a proper fair-hearing like all were hoping for, now here to via scientifically theory with real model you cannot brush-off, now here to challenge you. It’s likely the most epic scientific upset in all of scientific history, with Sebastian’s hypothesis having no problem holding true here either.

We are all making excellent progress through this latest science filled episode of the ongoing culture-war that was this time in-part brought to us by the Discovery Institute, a political think-tank which has a number of office with a phone projects and urban planning work to make Seattle and wherever a nice place to live and commute. The powers that be there don’t have to worry about which ring in the big-tent comes through for them, just hope one someday does and all are happy with it. Not much they can do about it anyway, it’s just better that the DI can like it too, than not.

Be thankful all are forgiving and this essentially offers a chance for “scientists” to change the outcome of that past big ugly mess of a public hearing with hurt feelings from everything going bad in Kansas, for so many who were hoping for something more scientifically exciting than a boycott then be outcast.

Date: 2012/11/13 05:55:39, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 13 2012,00:42)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,10:58)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2012,12:18)
Again, the model of evolution works. It produces things that did not exist before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......antenna

What does your model do?

What it can do is model multiple levels of fractal similar emergent intelligences which combine/combined to form multicellular living such as ourselves. And I know for a fact that your "model of evolution" does not model that, that's for sure. Does not even have a model in it to qualify something as intelligent, therefore the best you get are fuzzy generalizations that evolution is intelligent with the rest left up to the imagination.

Huh? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but are you saying that scientists claim that evolution is intelligent (i.e. an intelligent process)?

I think it's fair to say that many or all evolutionary scientists would agree that intelligence (as humans variably define it) has come about via evolution but I don't think that many or all would agree that evolution IS intelligent (an intelligent process).

I'm curious as to what others here think about that.

Yes, in fact evolution being intelligent is the basis of a relatively popular YouTube Origin of Intelligence video which made a painfully interesting red-herring out of the concept.

I would be interested to know what others here think about the concept of evolution being intelligent. Good question!

Date: 2012/11/13 07:04:44, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,06:15)
 
Quote
In Creation Science that’s the 24/7 prayer pathway to our Creator. Without a pathway like this there is no purpose to prayer, no receiver to receive it.


Why don't you fuck off and preach somewhere else, you fucking moron?

As I earlier mentioned scientific theory does not allow supernatural intervention, it should not need it in the first place. Yet your statement assumes that must be true for whatever (according to science too) created us to qualify as our Creator. So like it or not there are religious implications galore with this theory. And as I am sure you misinterpreted, science does not care what religion anyone is. All religions are always invited to have fun with science, even though would rather kick us all out, as though science is your own private little clubhouse.

Date: 2012/11/13 10:52:17, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 11 2012,04:29)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 11 2012,00:11)
           
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 10 2012,11:39)

         
Quote
And PSC does not… [have] a policy to immediately reject the theory because of what it is.

What publications have that policy then?

List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That Wiki page does indeed list a number of scientific societies which reject the notion that 'Intelligent Design' is science. In many cases, it also provides the scientific society's reasons for rejecting the notion that 'Intelligent Design' is science. For instance, the American Assiciation for the Advancement of Science says this: "Intelligent design proponents may use the language of science, but they do not use its methodology. They have yet to propose meaningful tests for their claims, there are no reports of current research on these hypotheses at relevant scientific society meetings, and there is no body of research on these hypotheses published in relevant scientific journals. So, intelligent design has not been demonstrated to be a scientific theory."
American Astronomical Society: "'Intelligent Design' fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers."
I realize you presented that Wikilink to support the notion that scientists are dogmatically committed to reject Inteliigent Design, Gaulin. But after looking at that Wikipage, it seems that while scientists do, indeed, reject Intelligent Design, they don't reject it for dogmatic reasons; rather, scientists reject Intelligent Design because it just ain't science.


I try not to go into dramatics over what was true back then about the theory. I'm just eager for all that to change. Cannot rush things, or else get conflict from too much all at once. Knee-jerk reactions that very much happen (regardless of clear and precise I word the theory) can have some trying to take down your best journals.

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 11 2012,04:29)

Got any testable hypotheses, Laddie GaGa? Yes, you have that spiffylicious computer program. Great! Does this program test a hypothesis? If so, what hypothesis does it test?

Seriously speaking, trollish one, the closest thing to a hypothesis is here the premise of the theory.

Quote
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.


It is a one sentence statement that is true or false depending on the supporting theory, that the premise does not provide just assumes can exist. Hence the big-tent that included the ARN forum to help write the theory where I did have fun even though my being so scientifically demanding was very annoying to some there. The premise/hypothesis spelled out what was needed for a theory, but only a theory making sense in science makes its hypothesis hold true. That is all the hypothesis here needs to do, for it to set a far-goal to try reaching with a theory, where even getting just a part of the way there can be revolutionary.

I have to best I can explain what Creation Science needs to know, this is where religious theory that connects from the scientific theory belongs. And as you may have discovered in the earlier long list of vital to theory papers the CRSQ paper by Jerry Bergman and Joseph Calkins sure made it. All the numbers I was searching for on my own were all there, which saved me at least a year of work googling. Whatever motivated them to write/publish them, is fine by me, and I hope for more like that. The question of whether the inverted retina is good design or bad design is no doubt religious/philosophical, but that is what CRSQ is for. They here had a right place at the right time paper to make it easy to code simple but biologically effective vision system representative of any design. There is no having to give undue credit to Creation Science it's here giving credit where due for past help to the theory and I, even though it was motivated by a philosophical question. I'm showing what works for scientific theory, that came from the scientific content that fills the pages in between to prove true their religious/philosophical hypothesis. If you wish to provide evidence against, you should no kidding lighten it up as constructive challenge then publish it at CRSQ where that is for.

This theory does not need to answer the philosophical questions one way or another, or attempts to. It is more like the theory needs what gets hurled around during the attempt to prove philosophical hypotheses true of false either way. What's flying around in this forum from it appearing, only helps too. It's in a way like the perfect troll for a place like this, total scientist magnet that even has you all lined up to help tease it along too. That is very scientifically valuable, especially for serious people who need to make sense of an issue that very much divided a number of states. In many ways, the premise is a hypothesis that for good or bad on its own makes things happen, from simply being there, needing the theory to resolve a scientific model well enough to hold true in the forum like this one too.

Hopefully that helps explain how I found religious/scientific theory and hypothesis to be working together here. It seems both exist as separate entities, and we needed to see what a real theory with a real model that even creationists can like a real lot looks like, to see the value in what at first looks way too religious of a journey to ever lead to such a useful scientific theory.

Date: 2012/11/13 11:48:49, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,11:09)
How old is the earth Gary?

Creator has forever. No sense rushing a good thing. And time is different for something as giant as the universe, day becomes millions or more years our time.

It is here most likely the earth was here for billions of years, as radiometric dating indicates. It is though to this theory just a date that does not change the theory or its model, so it's a little bit irrelevant. But I do mention intelligent living things likely having been here for several billion years, so that the time scale used for all else in between is what is already used in science.

Date: 2012/11/13 12:30:39, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,11:58)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,11:48)
But I do mention intelligent living things likely having been here for several billion years, so that the time scale used for all else in between is what is already used in science.

Were there "intelligent designers" around billions of years ago then?

For example?

What do you consider to be an "intelligent designer"? Do they have to have a beard and be a he who magically zaps stuff into existence with their finger sort of thing?

Date: 2012/11/13 12:45:55, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 13 2012,11:55)
Gary, you are so smart, why don't you write a translator to convert your pidgin into coherent English?

Translator Circuitry Kinda Explained Here

Date: 2012/11/13 13:05:26, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 13 2012,11:53)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,11:48)
Creator has forever. No sense rushing a good thing. And time is different for something as giant as the universe, day becomes millions or more years our time.

YEC Gibberish.

You might think so but things at the molecular level happening at femtosecond speeds is one reason it's so hard to investigate. Solar system will not change much during our time though, due to scale difference.

Date: 2012/11/13 13:18:00, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2012,12:02)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,11:48)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,11:09)
How old is the earth Gary?

Creator has forever. No sense rushing a good thing. And time is different for something as giant as the universe, day becomes millions or more years our time.

It is here most likely the earth was here for billions of years, as radiometric dating indicates. It is though to this theory just a date that does not change the theory or its model, so it's a little bit irrelevant. But I do mention intelligent living things likely having been here for several billion years, so that the time scale used for all else in between is what is already used in science.

Have you met JoeG?

He thinks termites are intelligent.

You do not have a hypothesis.  You have a statement of belief.  Here, let me help.  This is a correct hypothesis.

If organisms are intelligently designed, then we should see X when observing Y.  However, if organisms were not intelligently designed, then we will not see X when observing Y.

What is X and Y Gary?

I note that this 'hypothesis' is the exact same 'hypothesis' as all of Intelligent Design uses and hasn't been updated.  I'll also point out that this version of the 'hypothesis' has been around since mid 1987.

And, shockingly, no one has ever bothered to even try and test part of it.

Tell me, Gary, in two sentences, what would be a test for this hypothesis and why?

Yes I do believe I read JoeG before. I have no problem with termites qualifying as intelligent, either.

And the theory/premise requires "intelligent cause" to be explained not "intelligently designed" therefore you're off on your own with a premise you fabricated not the one in question that I put in my signature line to help you get that one right.

Date: 2012/11/13 13:41:20, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2012,13:09)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,12:30)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,11:58)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,11:48)
But I do mention intelligent living things likely having been here for several billion years, so that the time scale used for all else in between is what is already used in science.

Were there "intelligent designers" around billions of years ago then?

For example?

What do you consider to be an "intelligent designer"? Do they have to have a beard and be a he who magically zaps stuff into existence with their finger sort of thing?

Why are you asking us?  You won't even take responsibility for defining the terms you use?

No wonder no one takes you seriously.

And the title is "Theory of Intelligent Design" not "Theory of the Intelligent Designer" hence you are expecting a whole other theory, which is easier for you to argue has a religious deity in it than the one that the premise of the theory specifies. I'm setting a good example, but not getting muddled by it, then off chasing a red-herring.

Date: 2012/11/13 13:50:30, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 13 2012,13:25)
what is the difference between an "intelligent causer" and an "intelligent designer", in english, preferably?

To many, there is maybe no difference at all. But to a scientific theory that has to painstakingly operationally define absolutely everything it is a whole other theory. That one also seems more like something more for Creation Science to work on, so have fun with it there.

Date: 2012/11/13 14:11:04, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 13 2012,13:26)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 13 2012,13:30)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 13 2012,07:03)
get you a nym and hie thee to that shitbin and never ever ever use your real name.  the payoff is immortality.  i have devoured the tard of the woods, the tard of the sea, the tard of the loins of abraham, but ferceberk provides you with an endless smorgasbord of tard

Does anyone know the nomination procedure for Poet Laureate?

LOL that job is one of those where everyone takes a turn getting in the barrel, aint it?

That actually is brilliantly nuts.

Date: 2012/11/14 00:54:34, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 13 2012,16:08)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,12:30)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,11:58)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,11:48)
But I do mention intelligent living things likely having been here for several billion years, so that the time scale used for all else in between is what is already used in science.

Were there "intelligent designers" around billions of years ago then?

For example?

What do you consider to be an "intelligent designer"? Do they have to have a beard and be a he who magically zaps stuff into existence with their finger sort of thing?

No no, not with fingers. Invisible, with magic, pure and simple like it behoves a deity of some stature!

I had an excellent idea how you can help us understand this. Instead of changing "Design" to "Designer" we will instead create a new supernatural deity by changing "Select/Selection" to "Selector".  Now all you have to do is present to me a "Natural Selector" deity of some stature, then I will accept your theory as being a scientific theory.

Does that sound like a highly scientific plan to you?

Date: 2012/11/14 01:51:56, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 13 2012,12:42)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 13 2012,07:06)
Gary doesn't understand that his writing style is more appropriate to stream-of-consciousness novels and Relayer-era Yes lyrics than to any kind of explanation of... well, anything, really.

Now that's not fair.  Relayer-era Yes songs only droned on for an hour or so.  This has been going on for two weeks.

Well then maybe you would be interested in clean white lab-coat culture from like a whole other dimension?

Beastie Boys - Intergalactic

Then came CERN, and the rest was lab-fashion history...

Date: 2012/11/14 02:27:31, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 14 2012,02:11)
Quote
Now all you have to do is present to me a "Natural Selector" deity of some stature, then I will accept your theory as being a scientific theory.

Differential reproducitve success is a natural selector.
So are meandering rivers as well - why don't they run the shortest course down? So much is evidently going on in naturewithout even a hint of anybody having his hands there. Nature is not the impotent, sterile matter you have in mind.

Nature's ways are mysterious and it is our task to untangle that web. We got a looong way to go yet, we are not at science's end; we are in the midst of a veritable paradigm shift that I sense you are not aware of.

At each level from the bottom up things appear that we couldn't predict no matter what knowledge we might have about the underlying layer.

But you got your head up in the stratosphere, I live down here. Maybe you went astray somewhere along the road? El-shock therapy might be a good idea.

And I can easily say that a human is an intelligent designer. And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells.

Your point is now what? That you cannot accept that as making scientific sense because your scientific method requires a deity of some stature in a scientific theory for you to accept it as scientific?

Date: 2012/11/14 05:32:50, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 14 2012,04:11)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,02:27)
And I can easily say that a human is an intelligent designer. And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells.

I wrote a reply to this Gary, but on balance I think

"Fuck off IDiot" covers it better.


Just for that swearing at me again, I had to make sure to right away add that detail to the text of the theory. I then discovered it did not belong in any of the sections that were there. So I had to add a Conclusion section, starting it off with that, along with where that thought goes from there:  

Quote
Conclusion

We can here say that a human is an intelligent designer. Cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. Molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells. Behavior of Matter is the behavioral designer of genetic based molecular intelligence systems, from which the other levels of intelligence are in-turn emergent from.


You demanded a pure and simple like it behoves a deity of some stature Conclusion, now you have one, or at least a good start in that direction, all thanks to you. All in your clubhouse should be just as proud of your new status as having helped make the Theory of Intelligent Design even better, as I am, but I doubt they will.

Date: 2012/11/14 08:01:38, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18)
"And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells."

Gary, what is the "intelligent designer" of molecules, and what is the "intelligent designer" of the "intelligent designer" of molecules?


Since you are now in religion: In Christian theology it is generally accepted that there is a quality to our Creator that always was and always will be, and so may be matter that changes state but is still always there.  I'm fine leaving it as matter maybe also always was and always will be there.

In no way does this theory need an intelligent designer creating the behavior of matter, there is already Big Bang Theory and such for that.

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18)
Are the molecules and cells in a 'normal, healthy' human more intelligent than the molecules in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?

Are the molecules and cells in a human, who is born with a severe disease or disability, more intelligent than the molecules in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?

Are the molecules and cells in a child prodigy (for say, mathematics) more intelligent than the molecules and cells in a child who is not a prodigy?


It all depends on how you measure intelligence. Intelligence can include motor control skill as in athletic prodigies who have good muscles for endurance but what controls muscles starts in their brain into subsystems which individually figure out to get the coordination just right. Another design option is more intellectual. Another design option is a great seafarer type, or industrialist.

 
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18)
Now, picture two kids that are born a year or two apart to the same parents while the parents are both in their prime. One kid is born 'normal and healthy' and the other is born with Down syndrome. Explain how that can happen if 'intelligent molecules and cells' designed both kids.

Not all guesses that an intelligence system takes are expected to be as successful as Chromosomal Adam and Eve were. It also depends on what you would consider to be successful. None the less having any happy life is success to be thankful for. Maybe better that, than be a prodigy who lives in a state of depression because of it. Being so driven to one thing can be consuming. In a sense miss life, have no fun.

Date: 2012/11/14 10:02:49, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,08:15)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 14 2012,08:03)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,02:27)
And I can easily say that a human is an intelligent designer. And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells.

Your point is now what? That you cannot accept that as making scientific sense because your scientific method requires a deity of some stature in a scientific theory for you to accept it as scientific?

The logical fallacies in this regurgitation are just stunning.

1) Assuming the claim "cells have intelligence"
2) false extension "cellular intelligence designed human intelligence"
3) Assuming the claim "molecules have intelligence"
4) false extension "molecular intelligence designed cellular intelligence"

Gary, do you have any idea what "evidence" is?

Do you have ANY evidence for ANYTHING you have said?

Gary is simply continuing the same confusion and conflation of "ordinary design" with "rarefied design" that underlies the rest of the "intelligent design" creationism movement. His difference with the rest is that he appears to have a stepwise approach rather than an all-one-lump sort of thing.

I don't recall a "rarefied design" and will look that up.

Well I found a Paper-City Magazine with House and Design feature and similar links:

http://www.papercitymag.com/Article....ied-Air

It is so rare not even I know what it is yet. Thankfully, the theory helps keep it very simple. Best kept that way.

There is here a theory with a model that is fun to experiment with, that just so happens Creation Science can enjoy too. Nothing out of bounds of science about that, at all.

I earlier linked to the mandatory Everything Is Energy video to help conceptualize what the theory looks like where it ends up answering the cosmological big-questions. If what is in the video is what you call Creationism then witness how far Creationists have come since Dover.

More information on how the scientific method here works is in Wikipedia - Collective Intelligence especially about developing "The Golden Suggestion" that was here the one sentence premise for a theory all were invited to help figure out. It only makes sense that collective intelligence goes crazy with a golden suggestion like that here, because of your hating it real good. But the theory can take it.

To help get back on track a little, here is where what I said now stands in the theory which more or less etched it in stone. I could make a place for it in the Intro but at least should be somewhere in it:

Quote
We can here say that a human is an intelligent designer. Cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. Molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells. Behavior of Matter is the behavioral designer of genetic based molecular intelligence systems, from which the other levels of intelligence are in-turn emergent from.


As you can see I am clearly wording what in context of theory can be said, so there is no confusion as to what you end up with for an answer. That's the way the science goes, nothing I can do about it, in the first place.

Date: 2012/11/14 13:13:06, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,09:34)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,06:01)
         
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18)
"And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells."

Gary, what is the "intelligent designer" of molecules, and what is the "intelligent designer" of the "intelligent designer" of molecules?


Since you are now in religion: In Christian theology it is generally accepted that there is a quality to our Creator that always was and always will be, and so may be matter that changes state but is still always there.  I'm fine leaving it as matter maybe also always was and always will be there.

In no way does this theory need an intelligent designer creating the behavior of matter, there is already Big Bang Theory and such for that.

           
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18)
Are the molecules and cells in a 'normal, healthy' human more intelligent than the molecules in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?

Are the molecules and cells in a human, who is born with a severe disease or disability, more intelligent than the molecules in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?

Are the molecules and cells in a child prodigy (for say, mathematics) more intelligent than the molecules and cells in a child who is not a prodigy?


It all depends on how you measure intelligence. Intelligence can include motor control skill as in athletic prodigies who have good muscles for endurance but what controls muscles starts in their brain into subsystems which individually figure out to get the coordination just right. Another design option is more intellectual. Another design option is a great seafarer type, or industrialist.

           
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18)
Now, picture two kids that are born a year or two apart to the same parents while the parents are both in their prime. One kid is born 'normal and healthy' and the other is born with Down syndrome. Explain how that can happen if 'intelligent molecules and cells' designed both kids.

Not all guesses that an intelligence system takes are expected to be as successful as Chromosomal Adam and Eve were. It also depends on what you would consider to be successful. None the less having any happy life is success to be thankful for. Maybe better that, than be a prodigy who lives in a state of depression because of it. Being so driven to one thing can be consuming. In a sense miss life, have no fun.

So, you're apparently saying that going any further than molecules, when asking what designed what, is suddenly religious. The line is molecules?

And you're apparently saying that "matter" and its "behavior" aren't intelligently designed by an "intelligent designer" and that there is no intelligence within matter or within the behavior of matter. Is that what you're saying?

To hopefully lessen confusion, will you provide definitions that you think apply to your use of the following terms:

matter
behavior
molecule

You said:

"It all depends on how you measure intelligence."

Well, I asked you because you're the one claiming that molecules and cells are intelligent and that organisms that contain molecules and cells are therefor intelligent, so you should be the one who can "measure intelligence" and apply that measurement and your "theory" to my questions. Can you and will you?

You also said:

"Intelligence can include motor control skill as in athletic prodigies who have good muscles for endurance but what controls muscles starts in their brain into subsystems which individually figure out to get the coordination just right. Another design option is more intellectual. Another design option is a great seafarer type, or industrialist."

You're just saying that "intelligence" is variable but that doesn't answer my questions.


More later.

With "More later" I better get busy getting this online!

At this time there is no known intelligent behavior in the Behavior of Matter, else we would have to call it "Intelligent Behavior of Matter". String Theory suggest something interesting in regards to control dimension setting other dimensions which adds one or both missing requirements for intelligence to the Behavior of Matter algorithm, but at least for now two of four requirements is what the evidence shows. At the molecule level (and subatomic) we are soon out of scientific knowledge of how the Behavior of Matter system works. Need new discoveries to know more, especially how consciousness is involved.

This theory makes it possible to know what you're looking for ahead of time. And here the top level behavior does not even need to be intelligent to create intelligence, only needs the inherent ability to create it, such as from Behavior of Matter that is made of energy and all else in the earlier Everything Is Energy video that is artistically seen taking us the sparkling intelligence that can come and go, through space and time, while it forever stays going.

Where we get even more religious about it, intelligence has to start learning from scratch. That is not exactly an attribute of an "all-knowing" Creator. The text of the theory made the (as a behavior) "all-knowing" part clear so that feature is not overlooked as though the top level has to be intelligent, or that the object of the theory is try to qualify Behavior of Matter as intelligent too. What are attributes of a Creator not even found by looking for intelligence, it's where intelligence comes from that does not need to be "intelligent" to create us that such attributes are here found.

It might at first seem counter-intuitive but here the search for the Creator goes into what does not need to be intelligent, therefore does not suffer its limitations yet may be part of where consciousness comes from, conscious without needing to be intelligent to see through our eyes, and all else in the universe looking back at us, maybe. But before I go on into a Sunday Sermon from your line of reasoning.

Of course I cannot rule out an intelligence existing at the Behavior of Matter level but as far as theology and Creation Science are concerned you are here looking in the wrong place by expecting a Creator who is intelligent. It is more what intelligence does not have for intelligence to exist, is in addition to intelligence such as consciousness. Even Creation Science has problems with the Creator being intelligent thus born knowing nothing and defenseless, then had to learn then grow and so forth. That's the Roman God system where the Sun was being pulled through the sky by a rope by another God and other now known to be nonsense we can all be glad is all gone now, credit Christianity and Islam for picking up from where Jesus and ones eaten by lions left off in proving that was all junk-science not worth following. Genesis described matter coalescing from the heavens then earth then later humans were created in a way there was an Adam and Eve moment that the theory of ID had no problem finding, in the modern scientific evidence. Still works today, for that.

It's possible to believe in another level of creation which is intelligent having first created matter. But the theory does not need to start there, or requires that to be true, for it to explain what it can (such as having logic that makes possible coherent scientific answers to what an intelligent designer is by forming sentences representing the logic).

It seems you do have to get used to the terminology. I hope that helps explain it some more.

Date: 2012/11/14 13:52:04, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 14 2012,13:01)
     
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 14 2012,11:22)
Is he confusing intelligence with what physicists call "emergent properties"?

Yes.

He's also confusing "intelligence" with basic organic chemistry... and growth and development of organisms... and the central dogma of molecular biology... and natural selection...


Here is what that begins with. I hope others notice how in this paradigm "biological species" makes perfect sense along with the well established chemistry textbook "chemical species".  

 
Quote
Species and Speciation (Chemical, Biological)

Chemical species are atoms, molecules, molecular fragments, ions, etc., subjected to a chemical process or to a measurement. Generally, a chemical species can be defined as an ensemble of chemically identical molecular entities that can explore the same set of molecular energy levels on a characteristic or delineated time scale.  

Biological species are reproductively isolated taxa subjected to an environmental process or to a measurement. Generally, a biological species can be defined as an ensemble of biologically identical living things that can explore the same set of genetic traits/designs on a characteristic or delineated (geologic) time scale.

A chemical species is chemical molecular development produced by a species changing chemical reaction. The individual is a molecule that can (unless again changed to another related species) remain in that form virtually forever.

A biological species is biological molecular development produced by a species changing biological reaction. The individual is a living thing that perpetuates itself through time by replication. There is here species level “molecular development”, and “cellular development” into a type of cell for “multicellular development” from singly fertilized egg cell.

Behavioral Speciation

In both chemistry and biology there is “behavioral speciation” that applies as follows:

In chemistry there is "chemical speciation" where “chemical behavior” produces “behavioral speciation” of a “chemical species”. For example, before adding all the fish you want to a new aquarium it has to first be “cycled” with very few in it to establish toxic waste consuming bacteria that cause the chemical speciation of nitrogen in their urine from the toxic species ammonia (NH3, aq) or ammonium (NH4+) to the toxic species nitrite (NO2) then to the relatively nontoxic species nitrate (NO3) that plants and algae next consume. At first the most dominant nitrogen species is ammonia (NH3) from urine, then after cycling the nitrate (NO3) will become the most dominant nitrogen species.

In biology there is "biological speciation" where “biological behavior” produces “behavioral speciation” of a “biological species”.

Successful replication of a biological species requires each individual to be inherently able to recognize their own species from among all others.  Bees and ants use chemical communication to sense that the much larger queen belongs in their ensemble of biologically identical living things (which may include their farmed species).  Species recognition is also guided by (and often combination of) sound such as fruit flies and crickets that use their wings to sing a species specific song during courtship, visually by giving off light (fireflies and sea animals), or in bright light where male bower birds build and advertise adorned huts.  

Peacocks indicate their species (as well as arousal) by displaying giant tails that are full length by breeding season (then molts and has to grow back again) which makes a rattling hissing sound when they shake them.  When fighting the tail normally gets bundled up behind then they peck with their beaks or launch themselves forward for an attack with their sharp claws.  During breeding season instinctual behavior makes it more likely for a peahen (female peafowl) to tolerate the advances of peacocks (male peafowl) which will mate with anything that wanders into their displaying area.  Natural variation in tail spot number does not increase chances of a peacock’s success rate they just need the normal amount required to indicate to the peahen that they are a normal healthy peacock. With other species their size being scared off by (or keep a safe distance from) this relatively intimidating species recognition system peahens are more importantly an exception that doesn’t run away at the sight of an aroused peacock, which leads to the expected then happening from letting one slowly get too close, regardless of which species it may be that did not run when they had the chance to.

One example of when things go wrong is occasionally reported by ranchers who have a problem with a wild moose that thinks they are a cow, or at least would rather prefer to be with a herd where they don’t belong.  This identity crisis might be further complicated by loneliness and being safer in a herd with other animals, so even where the moose knows they are somewhat different a lonely moose may still prefer company of cows.  Regardless of their reasons for changing specie identity, keeping such a giant easily angered animal out of the herd where they think they belong is not easy.  Where left to roam with the cows the moose cannot parent any calves, which helps explain why there are not many moose with such a serious species self-recognition problem.  Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either.

Even when there appear to be great differences between the sexes the same genetic library is being expressed in both, producing detectable (to each other) features.  For example, in mammals, nipples are found on both male and female.  Later developmental features do not confuse our ability to recognize the opposite sex as being human.  Male and female peacocks also share many similar features.  Since they are not mammals they have no nipples, but male peacocks find their bold feathery tails to be similarly giggling aesthetic to females who find them a most beautiful feature.

During breeding season instinctual behavior makes it more likely for a peahen (female peafowl) to tolerate the advances of peacocks (male peafowl) which will mate with anything that wanders into their displaying area.  Natural variation in tail spot number does not increase chances of a peacock’s success rate they just need the normal amount needed to indicate to the peahen that they are a normal peacock.  With other species their size being scared off by (or keep a safe distance from) this relatively intimidating species recognition system peahens are more importantly an exception that doesn’t run away at the sight of an aroused peacock, which leads to the expected then happening from getting too close to one, regardless of which species it may be that did not run when they had the chance to.

The human species recognition system is highly visual.  We have words like “apish” or “hideous” to describe the looks and behavior of even our closest living relatives the chimpanzee, bonobo, and other great apes.  In our art and culture we find abstractions that exaggerate the real life features that we look for, as a result the size of Betty Boop’s pupil alone can become the size of her whole mouth yet we still recognize this cartoon image as being that of an attractive human.  In advertising the looks of a model are sometimes computer enhanced (airbrushed) to enhance the ideals not (yet?) common in our morphology.  What is added or removed from the picture helps show what human intelligence finds most desirable.  We are so visually responsive that just a picture of something we find attractive can produce a hormone based molecular arousal, or as in the common phrase “love at first sight” there is an instant behavioral change that produces an extreme desire to be with someone.
.....
.....

The theory is having no problem at all fitting the scientific pieces into place in a useful way, by explaining how living things works, in the context of intelligence, without needing the baggage from the paradigm you're used to lugging around that here only complicates things.

Date: 2012/11/14 13:59:24, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 14 2012,11:22)
Is he confusing intelligence with what physicists call "emergent properties"?

From theory:

Quote

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, a nonrandom force guided self-assembly  process whereby an intelligent entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in levels of increasingly complex organization producing self-similar entities systematically in their own image, likeness. As in a fractal, multiple designs are produced by an algorithm producing emergent fractal-similar designs at the next size scale (atom -> molecule -> cell -> multicellular).



Large arrows show this emergent causative pathway from behavior of matter (a Behavioral Cause) and intelligence from intelligence (an Intelligent Cause). The last arrow to Multicellular Intelligence indicates a predicted sudden event scientifically witnessed by the fossil record known as the Cambrian Explosion which will be covered in a section of its own. Shown in the lower half of the illustration is a simplified block-flow diagram of the same cognitive/intelligence system  that is at each level of the progression shown above it.

Date: 2012/11/14 14:48:48, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 14 2012,13:58)
How does gravity know to pull stuff towards it? Intelligence!

Intelligence is here instead to dream to one-day ask you: What gravity?

ID Mission Training Video

I hope that helps overcome your gravity, even though in your case you might then float off into outer space again on us..

Date: 2012/11/14 14:56:52, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,14:42)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,10:02)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,08:15)
   
Gary is simply continuing the same confusion and conflation of "ordinary design" with "rarefied design" that underlies the rest of the "intelligent design" creationism movement. His difference with the rest is that he appears to have a stepwise approach rather than an all-one-lump sort of thing.

I don't recall a "rarefied design" and will look that up.

[...]

Gary, text highlighted in blue indicates a link. That is, a clickable Universal Resource Locator that most browsers allow you to click upon to access. These are usually provided to ensure that relevant information is readily accessible.

The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance

 
Quote

So instead of design being the penultimate default hypothesis in the decision tree, rarefied design becomes, at best, a tenuous conclusion to draw. There is an in-principle difference between rarefied and ordinary design inferences, based on the background knowledge available about ordinary, but not rarefied, design agencies. Rarefied design inferences tell us nothing that can be inductively generalized. Consequently, analogies between artifacts of ordinary design, which are the result of causal regularities of (known) designers, and the "artifacts" of rarefied design do not hold (as Philo noted in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Book V).7 Indeed, we might even conclude that the specified small probability of rarefied design is itself an artifact of our prior expectations.


I've provided the link previously to Gary, with a response that indicated that he had read the paper. Apparently it didn't make it to long-term memory.

I seriously do not pay much attention to all that, or need to. It's a whole other argument from the past that I do not want to get involved in.

Date: 2012/11/15 05:55:17, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 14 2012,22:33)
 
Quote
First, you still don't have a theory, because you have no evidence.

Second, what you are doing is stealing the existing paradigm, then inserting "intelligence" in random places and calling it your own "theory".

That's all.

You noticed that too, huh?

But molecules? Molecules of a particular type react with other molecules according to consistent rules. That's not the behavior of something with intelligence - intelligent beings aren't that predictable; sometimes they vary from routine for no particular reason. Chemicals don't do that.

Then there's that comparison of chemical species against biological species? Please, the word "species" has a very different meaning in those two fields. Two molecules of the same substance are as near identical as different objects can be*, but with biological species it's normal for individuals to be quite different from each other. Not to mention that it's also routine for closely related species to have no sharp boundary between them - which one an individual belongs to can sometimes be a subjective judgment.

(One exception to molecules of same substance being identical is if the atoms have different isotopes, but as I understand it, that usually averages out for most substances, although not always e.g. heavy water.)

Henry

Henry, using the required logic and vocabulary for this theory simply show where changes need to be made in this text for it to be more Occam's Razor simple and logical. If you succeed then the theory will go with that instead. Otherwise your suggestion that you have something better proves to be all hype:

 
Quote
Species and Speciation (Chemical, Biological)

Chemical species are atoms, molecules, molecular fragments, ions, etc., subjected to a chemical process or to a measurement. Generally, a chemical species can be defined as an ensemble of chemically identical molecular entities that can explore the same set of molecular energy levels on a characteristic or delineated time scale.  

Biological species are reproductively isolated taxa subjected to an environmental process or to a measurement. Generally, a biological species can be defined as an ensemble of biologically identical living things that can explore the same set of genetic traits/designs on a characteristic or delineated (geologic) time scale.

A chemical species is chemical molecular development produced by a species changing chemical reaction. The individual is a molecule that can (unless again changed to another related species) remain in that form virtually forever.

A biological species is biological molecular development produced by a species changing biological reaction. The individual is a living thing that perpetuates itself through time by replication. There is here species level “molecular development”, and “cellular development” into a type of cell for “multicellular development” from singly fertilized egg cell.

Behavioral Speciation

In both chemistry and biology there is “behavioral speciation” that applies as follows:

In chemistry there is "chemical speciation" where “chemical behavior” produces “behavioral speciation” of a “chemical species”. For example, before adding all the fish you want to a new aquarium it has to first be “cycled” with very few in it to establish toxic waste consuming bacteria that cause the chemical speciation of nitrogen in their urine from the toxic species ammonia (NH3, aq) or ammonium (NH4+) to the toxic species nitrite (NO2) then to the relatively nontoxic species nitrate (NO3) that plants and algae next consume. At first the most dominant nitrogen species is ammonia (NH3) from urine, then after cycling the nitrate (NO3) will become the most dominant nitrogen species.

In biology there is "biological speciation" where “biological behavior” produces “behavioral speciation” of a “biological species”.

Successful replication of a biological species requires each individual to be inherently able to recognize their own species from among all others.  Bees and ants use chemical communication to sense that the much larger queen belongs in their ensemble of biologically identical living things (which may include their farmed species).  Species recognition is also guided by (and often combination of) sound such as fruit flies and crickets that use their wings to sing a species specific song during courtship, visually by giving off light (fireflies and sea animals), or in bright light where male bower birds build and advertise adorned huts.  

Peacocks indicate their species (as well as arousal) by displaying giant tails that are full length by breeding season (then molts and has to grow back again) which makes a rattling hissing sound when they shake them.  When fighting the tail normally gets bundled up behind then they peck with their beaks or launch themselves forward for an attack with their sharp claws.  During breeding season instinctual behavior makes it more likely for a peahen (female peafowl) to tolerate the advances of peacocks (male peafowl) which will mate with anything that wanders into their displaying area.  Natural variation in tail spot number does not increase chances of a peacock’s success rate they just need the normal amount required to indicate to the peahen that they are a normal healthy peacock. With other species their size being scared off by (or keep a safe distance from) this relatively intimidating species recognition system peahens are more importantly an exception that doesn’t run away at the sight of an aroused peacock, which leads to the expected then happening from letting one slowly get too close, regardless of which species it may be that did not run when they had the chance to.

One example of when things go wrong is occasionally reported by ranchers who have a problem with a wild moose that thinks they are a cow, or at least would rather prefer to be with a herd where they don’t belong.  This identity crisis might be further complicated by loneliness and being safer in a herd with other animals, so even where the moose knows they are somewhat different a lonely moose may still prefer company of cows.  Regardless of their reasons for changing specie identity, keeping such a giant easily angered animal out of the herd where they think they belong is not easy.  Where left to roam with the cows the moose cannot parent any calves, which helps explain why there are not many moose with such a serious species self-recognition problem.  Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either.

Even when there appear to be great differences between the sexes the same genetic library is being expressed in both, producing detectable (to each other) features.  For example, in mammals, nipples are found on both male and female.  Later developmental features do not confuse our ability to recognize the opposite sex as being human.  Male and female peacocks also share many similar features.  Since they are not mammals they have no nipples, but male peacocks find their bold feathery tails to be similarly giggling aesthetic to females who find them a most beautiful feature.

During breeding season instinctual behavior makes it more likely for a peahen (female peafowl) to tolerate the advances of peacocks (male peafowl) which will mate with anything that wanders into their displaying area.  Natural variation in tail spot number does not increase chances of a peacock’s success rate they just need the normal amount needed to indicate to the peahen that they are a normal peacock.  With other species their size being scared off by (or keep a safe distance from) this relatively intimidating species recognition system peahens are more importantly an exception that doesn’t run away at the sight of an aroused peacock, which leads to the expected then happening from getting too close to one, regardless of which species it may be that did not run when they had the chance to.

The human species recognition system is highly visual.  We have words like “apish” or “hideous” to describe the looks and behavior of even our closest living relatives the chimpanzee, bonobo, and other great apes.  In our art and culture we find abstractions that exaggerate the real life features that we look for, as a result the size of Betty Boop’s pupil alone can become the size of her whole mouth yet we still recognize this cartoon image as being that of an attractive human.  In advertising the looks of a model are sometimes computer enhanced (airbrushed) to enhance the ideals not (yet?) common in our morphology.  What is added or removed from the picture helps show what human intelligence finds most desirable.  We are so visually responsive that just a picture of something we find attractive can produce a hormone based molecular arousal, or as in the common phrase “love at first sight” there is an instant behavioral change that produces an extreme desire to be with someone.
.....
.....

Date: 2012/11/15 06:57:27, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,18:38)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,14:56)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,14:42)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,10:02)
         
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,08:15)
   
Gary is simply continuing the same confusion and conflation of "ordinary design" with "rarefied design" that underlies the rest of the "intelligent design" creationism movement. His difference with the rest is that he appears to have a stepwise approach rather than an all-one-lump sort of thing.

I don't recall a "rarefied design" and will look that up.

[...]

Gary, text highlighted in blue indicates a link. That is, a clickable Universal Resource Locator that most browsers allow you to click upon to access. These are usually provided to ensure that relevant information is readily accessible.

The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance

         
Quote

So instead of design being the penultimate default hypothesis in the decision tree, rarefied design becomes, at best, a tenuous conclusion to draw. There is an in-principle difference between rarefied and ordinary design inferences, based on the background knowledge available about ordinary, but not rarefied, design agencies. Rarefied design inferences tell us nothing that can be inductively generalized. Consequently, analogies between artifacts of ordinary design, which are the result of causal regularities of (known) designers, and the "artifacts" of rarefied design do not hold (as Philo noted in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Book V).7 Indeed, we might even conclude that the specified small probability of rarefied design is itself an artifact of our prior expectations.


I've provided the link previously to Gary, with a response that indicated that he had read the paper. Apparently it didn't make it to long-term memory.

I seriously do not pay much attention to all that, or need to. It's a whole other argument from the past that I do not want to get involved in.

Hmmm.

There's that whole response where you went on at length about trying to look like you actually understood what was meant by "rarefied design" and failed, so while it is stipulated that you weren't paying attention, the evidence says that, yes, you did want to get involved in it.

Until it became obvious that you were completely off-base, at which point, yes, you wanted not to be involved. Your rate of abandonment of claims did make a pretty good predictor of that reaction.

I meant what I said about my not being the one to talk to about concepts you need to argue with William Dembski over. From the way they list all the possibilities they could think of to explain "Life" and other things it's more of a brainstorming session, not text of a theory explaining a model.

Our guru for the "What is Life?" question became professor Koeslag in South Africa:

Johan H Koeslag, "Medical Physiology :: What is Life?", Stellenbosch University, South Africa
http://sun025.sun.ac.za/portal.....is_life

William Dembski adds to the theory the thinking about cells being like cities which are built and maintained by a molecular workforce. The Starship - We Built This City went out to him for such educational hoopla over the inside a cell video he talked over in a lecture.

It's not that I don't agree the page you showed me does not add up to a theory with a model to experiment with. That just is not where William is, in the logic of this theory that does not backtrack the problem in that direction, but still has a place for the overall IDea that he had in mind...

Date: 2012/11/15 08:11:37, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2012,07:09)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,05:55)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 14 2012,22:33)
     
Quote
First, you still don't have a theory, because you have no evidence.

Second, what you are doing is stealing the existing paradigm, then inserting "intelligence" in random places and calling it your own "theory".

That's all.

You noticed that too, huh?

But molecules? Molecules of a particular type react with other molecules according to consistent rules. That's not the behavior of something with intelligence - intelligent beings aren't that predictable; sometimes they vary from routine for no particular reason. Chemicals don't do that.

Then there's that comparison of chemical species against biological species? Please, the word "species" has a very different meaning in those two fields. Two molecules of the same substance are as near identical as different objects can be*, but with biological species it's normal for individuals to be quite different from each other. Not to mention that it's also routine for closely related species to have no sharp boundary between them - which one an individual belongs to can sometimes be a subjective judgment.

(One exception to molecules of same substance being identical is if the atoms have different isotopes, but as I understand it, that usually averages out for most substances, although not always e.g. heavy water.)

Henry

Henry, using the required logic and vocabulary for this theory simply show where changes need to be made in this text for it to be more Occam's Razor simple and logical. If you succeed then the theory will go with that instead. Otherwise your suggestion that you have something better proves to be all hype:

This is a very curious statement.  So you seem to be implying that if there is substance to claims, then they will stand. Otherwise they fail.

So, where's the substance to your notion?

How will it overcome the current paradigm?  Because it hasn't yet.

You are now asking the same thing as "How did Relativity Theory overcome Electronics Theory which already explains light in optoelectronics?"

There are two separate models. Two separate sets of required vocabulary. Neither explain the exact same thing.

Demanding one be confused with the other is not what Judge Jones wants either. He noted the need to keep religion and another theory separated from the theory that is on its own supposed to explain a mechanism/model.

I solve the separation problem by only showing what needs to be in the "scientific theory" then let Creation Science freely work on "religious theory" that is possible from it. There is then a proper place for each, without science stopping because of it. And even you are here expected to keep the two scientific models scientifically and religiously separated. No special rules for you.

Suggestions that this theory has to overcome yours, is really only wishful thinking. The other theory you are protesting with makes an irrelevant comparison, which only makes it appear that it is evidence against the other, when in reality it is not.

Date: 2012/11/15 08:39:53, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2012,08:16)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,08:11)
You are now asking the same thing as "How did Relativity Theory overcome Electronics Theory which already explains light in optoelectronics?"

There are two separate models. Two separate sets of required vocabulary. Neither explain the exact same thing.

Demanding one be confused with the other is not what Judge Jones wants either. He noted the need to keep religion and another theory separated from the theory that is on its own supposed to explain a mechanism/model.

I solve the separation problem by only showing what needs to be in the "scientific theory" then let Creation Science freely work on "religious theory" that is possible from it. There is then a proper place for each, without science stopping because of it. And even you are here expected to keep the two scientific models scientifically and religiously separated. No special rules for you.

Suggestions that this theory has to overcome yours, is really only wishful thinking. The other theory you are protesting with makes an irrelevant comparison, which only makes it appear that it is evidence against the other, when in reality it is not.

You are really confused.  I asked a question and get random gibberish about religion, Jones, etc in response.

I have no interest in religious models, religious research or anything else.

Let me try this again.

DOES YOUR NOTION ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING?

You are the one who asked "How will it overcome the current paradigm?" and it's not my fault that's where that question ends up going. At least can't say I was ignoring you. I was just being as precise as I can, and you maybe got more information than you needed but at least it's in there somewhere.

I'm now though just drawing a big blank wondering what more you could even ask for in a theory that made what is most important to know about the mysterious insect central complex quite obvious, and all else your model is no help for figuring out how it works.

What do you expect a theory to do and what does that accomplish?

Date: 2012/11/15 10:01:53, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 15 2012,08:59)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,06:57)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,18:38)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,14:56)
             
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,14:42)
             
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,10:02)
                 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,08:15)
   
Gary is simply continuing the same confusion and conflation of "ordinary design" with "rarefied design" that underlies the rest of the "intelligent design" creationism movement. His difference with the rest is that he appears to have a stepwise approach rather than an all-one-lump sort of thing.

I don't recall a "rarefied design" and will look that up.

[...]

Gary, text highlighted in blue indicates a link. That is, a clickable Universal Resource Locator that most browsers allow you to click upon to access. These are usually provided to ensure that relevant information is readily accessible.

The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance

               
Quote

So instead of design being the penultimate default hypothesis in the decision tree, rarefied design becomes, at best, a tenuous conclusion to draw. There is an in-principle difference between rarefied and ordinary design inferences, based on the background knowledge available about ordinary, but not rarefied, design agencies. Rarefied design inferences tell us nothing that can be inductively generalized. Consequently, analogies between artifacts of ordinary design, which are the result of causal regularities of (known) designers, and the "artifacts" of rarefied design do not hold (as Philo noted in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Book V).7 Indeed, we might even conclude that the specified small probability of rarefied design is itself an artifact of our prior expectations.


I've provided the link previously to Gary, with a response that indicated that he had read the paper. Apparently it didn't make it to long-term memory.

I seriously do not pay much attention to all that, or need to. It's a whole other argument from the past that I do not want to get involved in.

Hmmm.

There's that whole response where you went on at length about trying to look like you actually understood what was meant by "rarefied design" and failed, so while it is stipulated that you weren't paying attention, the evidence says that, yes, you did want to get involved in it.

Until it became obvious that you were completely off-base, at which point, yes, you wanted not to be involved. Your rate of abandonment of claims did make a pretty good predictor of that reaction.

I meant what I said about my not being the one to talk to about concepts you need to argue with William Dembski over. From the way they list all the possibilities they could think of to explain "Life" and other things it's more of a brainstorming session, not text of a theory explaining a model.

Our guru for the "What is Life?" question became professor Koeslag in South Africa:

Johan H Koeslag, "Medical Physiology :: What is Life?", Stellenbosch University, South Africa
http://sun025.sun.ac.za/portal.....is_life

William Dembski adds to the theory the thinking about cells being like cities which are built and maintained by a molecular workforce. The Starship - We Built This City went out to him for such educational hoopla over the inside a cell video he talked over in a lecture.

It's not that I don't agree the page you showed me does not add up to a theory with a model to experiment with. That just is not where William is, in the logic of this theory that does not backtrack the problem in that direction, but still has a place for the overall IDea that he had in mind...

Missing the point yet again, Gary? All IDC is a bait-and-switch, where whatever actual examples can be found, they correspond to "ordinary design", but the argument comes around eventually to asking the reader to accept an inference to "rarefied design" as if it were just the same thing. The point isn't that this is obviously a part of Dembski's argumentation, but also that your posts here do that, too. That's why the linked article is relevant. "Rarefied design" advocacy isn't a failing unique to Dembski.

I already understand that what is found elsewhere does not amount to acceptable scientific theory. I am on that point more or less agreeing with you. I'm sure ones who only got into trouble because of it, have no problem at all agreeing, that it was just enough information to get into unexpected trouble with. But that is the past, that I can see you need to put behind real bad too.

There has been such a myriad of ideas that have been thrown around over the years, none even want to have to first memorize a 1000 phrase vocabulary list then over the next ten years take each opinionated argument one by one in detail. We could easily spend months just getting you to at most half-qualify your "ordinary design" concept well enough to be possible to use in theory.

I make sure not to waste the time of scientists and educators who only need to know how the model works.

Regardless of what you claim is lacking from my replies, you have not addressed anything to be concerned about it the theory that is supposed to be under discussion in this thread.

Date: 2012/11/15 12:38:41, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
I am not being (overly) metaphorical by saying that what the theory must most do here is make real progress working on mysteries of science at the table where all evidence is to be presented for judging which will then fill the blank pages where it gets written down for history to see, as in:  

Tom Petty And The Heartbreakers - Runnin' Down A Dream

The result of scientifically challenging this theory is now literally the pioneering of new areas of science. Coding an intelligent causation event is here a milestone, even breakthrough in understanding the emergence of intelligence. The theory explains what the next level has for a circuit schematic and all necessary for such models to be written and tested. That is what a theory is for, to find new ways to answer questions that everyone has. When it can answer questions, all are then glad we’re no longer stuck in the past with the confusing barrage of speculations that as we can see literally consume Wesley, who is more or less saying that I should not take it seriously when I already don’t because of how easy it is (for number of reasons) to actually go crazy trying to make sense of it all. I spare everyone that frustration by having what did work and was needed for theory that here links to the best by-far “What is Life?” answer on the internet from a respected education expert who very well sums up what is important for science teachers and us to know. It is complete enough that the theory is then off to wherever it happens to go after that, instead of stuck trying to answer the question of “What is Life?” without having first studied professor Koeslag.

We don’t need to go back to where Wesley thinks is important for us to begin. Or need to meet some other gauge of what a theory is, which here requires successful experience with it, before even knowing what a theory really is. Some having to hate it just goes with the territory. When the anger is tremendous Collective Intelligence Theory starts making even more sense after theory that was supposed to have been impossible forms inside a collective that includes scientists.

A theory is something that is read which explains how something works which in turn gets science noisily moving along toward new models to explain things (such as light) different ways. Theory being taunting, teasing and all the rest makes it (for a scientist too) like moth to a flame, where I was just one before you who reached its source then got singed real good but was OK.

Considering how there is now theory to predict very scientifically interesting intelligent causation events the theory is well enough already working on a mystery, going wherever it leads, then eventually needing to jump into this forum. Needing more than that for it to qualify as a theory is missing the point of what a theory needs to be for it to be scientifically useful and get around. Just being able to not need to care about thousands of pages of philosophy mixed mess that there once was for theory, only helps indicate how much real progress has been made, by at least us.

Date: 2012/11/15 13:11:01, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 15 2012,10:07)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,10:01)
Regardless of what you claim is lacking from my replies, you have not addressed anything to be concerned about it the theory that is supposed to be under discussion in this thread.

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative.

Did you see the bit in bold Gary? That's what you need to be concerned with.

Again Falsifiability is a very recent controversial "philosophy of science" from Karl Popper not the reality of the Theory of Intelligent Design where the philosophy is used in a way that would stop any politically inconvenient theory. Finding bunnies in the Cambrian would result in pet alien-bunnies theories but the GA would still work so just be a windfall, not falsification. The philosophy is in reality more describing the attributes of a hypothesis. The "falsification" science-stopper does not deserve to be taught as requirement for theory.

A theory should have a model in it, that explains how something works. Questions are then in turn answered. Forever going in circles to meet requirements of what another considers to be falsification is scientifically pointless.

Date: 2012/11/15 13:38:23, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2012,13:28)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,13:11)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 15 2012,10:07)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,10:01)
Regardless of what you claim is lacking from my replies, you have not addressed anything to be concerned about it the theory that is supposed to be under discussion in this thread.

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative.

Did you see the bit in bold Gary? That's what you need to be concerned with.

Again Falsifiability is a very recent controversial "philosophy of science" from Karl Popper not the reality of the Theory of Intelligent Design where the philosophy is used in a way that would stop any politically inconvenient theory. Finding bunnies in the Cambrian would result in pet alien-bunnies theories but the GA would still work so just be a windfall, not falsification. The philosophy is in reality more describing the attributes of a hypothesis. The "falsification" science-stopper does not deserve to be taught as requirement for theory.

A theory should have a model in it, that explains how something works. Questions are then in turn answered. Forever going in circles to meet requirements of what another considers to be falsification is scientifically pointless.

Does your notion actually do anything?

I'll say so! Just check the new find here to go along with all else now explaining what this theory can do for you:
 
Space Truckin' - Deep Purple

You might need to have been there to know what it's like, but we can do all kinds of things, and you can't stop our from out of the future theory fun that goes along with it.

Date: 2012/11/15 15:58:01, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
It appears that my stomping on and ruining their Popper-powered whac-a-mole game is not being taken lightly. Now, only a drug crazed crazy person could argue with what has since around 1980 been the foundation of their science. Oh bad me.  

This seriously is where I draw the line with all the ways some have to stop valuable scientific progress, especially that useless arm-chair excuse for giving up before even getting started. None can be excused from having to show evidence to the contrary of what is clearly enough stated in the theory. There not being any, still speaks for itself.

Date: 2012/11/15 16:21:53, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 15 2012,16:00)
bye then!

I will so not miss your swearing at me for giving you what you asked for, and not mind being expected to bend over for you, I hardly know what to say right now. All I can think of is: If you want to go then that is fine by me.

Date: 2012/11/15 16:56:02, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 15 2012,16:37)
Quote
'Sports' The position of one who draws no opponent for a round in a tournament and so advances to the next round. Idiom: by the bye/by.


I.E. you are giving up. As let's face it your responses are becoming less and less relevant to anything at all that's been said in this thread.

I am not going anywhere. I'm still here waiting for something better than brush-offs. And do sometimes get good questions, like from The whole truth who has asked good ones.

Date: 2012/11/15 23:19:58, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 15 2012,17:11)
I have some good questions, Gary!

1) Why do you keep posting that PSC badge in your signature in every forum you inhabit?
1b) Do you believe it helps or hinders your mission?

2) Is there anyone on the planet Earth besides yourself using your 'theory' in any way, shape or form?

3) How many more forums do you think you will have to visit after this one before it sinks in that nobody understands a word you are saying?

4) How many more times do you need to be reminded what a scientific theory is before it sinks in?

5) How many more times do you need to be asked what your theory explains or predicts before it sinks in that whatever you claim to be doing - it isn't science.

1, the PSC award banner (that is only for award winners) is there so that no matter how well you think you're doing (making it seem that you know better than everyone else) the how-to community most knowledgeable in what else is around already made it clear what they think about it, and you cannot change that. And 1b it's my mission to make sure they are proudly represented and credited not sidelined in a forum where some will always instead demand respect of some pompous tribunal, which even needs to judge theory with recent controversial philosophy to get the answer they want.

2 only helps show how out of touch with the rest of the planet your opinion is, which leads to 3,4,5 not being worth answering. Reality is, that programmers, school board members, artists, politicians and others found this theory useful for answering questions they had in regards to the scientific merit of the Theory of Intelligent Design and what a theory is and is not. I already explained how in Kansas the US laws and ethics combines to add an unresolved public hearing requiring a number of years after that to even begin to resolve, and all that takes the outcome of this theory very seriously. It's a learning thing, at the citizenry level, that the law of the land wants to happen too. Modern day in the name of science invading your forum like this, then makes our forefathers proud. So for whatever it's worth, here again is the link to what is to be fairly judged to be science or not:

Theory of Intelliget Design - Download Page with 3 Formats (including pdf)

And of course:

Computer Model with included Theory of Intelligent Design at Planet Source Code

And even though I try not to outdo YouTube videos here's one more to add to your culture collection:

Collective Soul w/ Atlanta Symphony Youth Orchestra

The videos I link to can make a music teacher proud. The theory's art/music model already shows US culture, at its best. And I know you can't beat that with your paradigm either. Really need a theory that is already stuck in a culture war, where in a sense all that need be easily changed is its outcome, by not over-reacting, and other simple basics which all help change the way things go.

Date: 2012/11/16 09:04:32, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 15 2012,23:22)
Again:
Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?


As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical. But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

Date: 2012/11/16 10:01:50, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 16 2012,07:20)
Your conclusion does not do that, for the simple reason explained in the 2001 Wilkins and Elsberry paper, to wit, that "ordinary design" does not provide justification for "rarefied design" inferences. Both "creation science" and "intelligent design creationism" *require* those "rarefied design" inferences, and thus no "theory" that solely deals with "ordinary design" can be said to support or justify any such thing.

First, out of curiousity, I'm wondering whether you would (as a reviewer) accept this as meeting PNAS journal standards. Do you see any problem with it?

 
Quote
Footprints of nonsentient design inside the human genome

Abstract

Intelligent design (ID)—the latest incarnation of religious creationism—posits that complex biological features did not accrue gradually via natural evolutionary forces but, instead, were crafted ex nihilo by a cognitive agent. Yet, many complex biological traits are gratuitously complicated, function poorly, and debilitate their bearers. Furthermore, such dysfunctional traits abound not only in the phenotypes but inside the genomes of eukaryotic species. Here, I highlight several outlandish features of the human genome that defy notions of ID by a caring cognitive agent. These range from de novo mutational glitches that collectively kill or maim countless individuals (including embryos and fetuses) to pervasive architectural flaws (including pseudogenes, parasitic mobile elements, and needlessly baroque regulatory pathways) that are endogenous in every human genome. Gross imperfection at the molecular level presents a conundrum for the traditional paradigms of natural theology as well as for recent assertions of ID, but it is consistent with the notion of nonsentient contrivance by evolutionary forces. In this important philosophical sense, the science of evolutionary genetics should rightly be viewed as an ally (not an adversary) of mainstream religions because it helps the latter to escape the profound theological enigmas posed by notions of ID.

http://www.pnas.org/content....7.short

Date: 2012/11/16 10:22:47, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 16 2012,09:56)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,10:04)
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 15 2012,23:22)
Again:
Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?


As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical. But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

how do you measure these similarities?  quantitatively, and not from the gut?

Best to model it (or conceptualize what that ends up looking right). You then have all of the variables of the algorithm(s) to monitor for comparisons. Also know for sure such things as whether new information from conjugation influenced its molecular or its cellular intelligence.

Depending on cell type there may be little or no conjugation. Where it has a centrosome we get an animal cell which can perform amazing feats, even form social-cell colonies called humans.

Date: 2012/11/16 10:34:28, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
And excuse typo from rushing, should read "(or conceptualize what that ends up looking like)."

The cell model would need a molecular intelligence algorithm, and unless it self-emerges the cellular intelligence (that controls all its motor molecules) there would need to be a cellular intelligence algorithm for each subsystem (there is more than one intelligence system running but all are cellular intelligence systems).

Date: 2012/11/16 11:12:30, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 16 2012,10:25)
Gary,

Please explain (simply) how

<blockquote>Gross imperfection at the molecular level presents a conundrum for the traditional paradigms of natural theology as well as for recent assertions of ID, but it is consistent with the notion of <b>nonsentient contrivance by evolutionary forces</b>.</blockquote>

Unless you choose to argue that evolution is an intelligence, then this paper doesn't help you.

I would personally argue that evolution is a design system and I think that most here would agree provided that 'design' is defined very specifically.  But it sure isn't intelligent.

As far as this paper, you might consider that it's something called a "review paper".  You not being familiar with scientific publishing, I will explain.

In this paper, the author does no unique experiments or observations.  Instead, the author collects the research from other unique experiments/observations and combines related ones into a single paper.  

These are very good for showing things like safety of GM organisms or why "intelligent design" isn't.

It really doesn't help you.  I'll also point out that, unlike your paper, this one is concise, explains itself very well, and has copious references to the actual experiments and observations that support the statements in the paper (something you really ought to consider).

I don't know why I'm explaining this to you, I know you don't care to actually understand what science really is.

Your opinion was actually very helpful. It is certainly not an ordinary PNAS article. And I doubt that it helps the theory any. I was just wondering what Wesley sees in it, with no harm adding your thoughts. Personally, I would not even want to have to attempt showing that evolution is intelligent, the theory is simply not made for answering that question. A cell normally has two types of intelligence, not one. Not all the intelligence can be said to have "evolved" it developed. Without a model to clearly separate out the different kinds of intelligence, there is at best a big-fuzzy incomplete answer.

Date: 2012/11/16 11:28:52, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 16 2012,10:40)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,10:34)
The cell model would need a molecular intelligence algorithm, and unless it self-emerges the cellular intelligence (that controls all its motor molecules) there would need to be a cellular intelligence algorithm for each subsystem (there is more than one intelligence system running but all are cellular intelligence systems).

And your model/theory demonstrates this does it?

That is what a routine chemotaxis model already is. Where checked with theory there should be no problem finding how their chemotaxis algorithm meets the four requirements, in code. It's another case of just needing to know what you are looking for, then you find it already there, all over the place. Or end up coding one by accident, but didn't know, until I explained what it is.

Date: 2012/11/16 12:03:03, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 16 2012,11:16)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,10:22)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 16 2012,09:56)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,10:04)
     
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 15 2012,23:22)
Again:
Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?


As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical. But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

how do you measure these similarities?  quantitatively, and not from the gut?

Best to model it (or conceptualize what that ends up looking right). You then have all of the variables of the algorithm(s) to monitor for comparisons. Also know for sure such things as whether new information from conjugation influenced its molecular or its cellular intelligence.

Depending on cell type there may be little or no conjugation. Where it has a centrosome we get an animal cell which can perform amazing feats, even form social-cell colonies called humans.

You're not answering the question(s). Before you can have a model that simulates something, you must have your variables defined, and in your case you must be able to measure the incremental development of "cellular intelligence."  Because no one else on earth that I know of knows how to do this, and you've made assertions regarding development of "cellular intelligence" you must have also developed a rigorous and well-defined measurement system.  BTW, "rigorous" in this context includes "well-tested," with the data to support the efficacy of the system.  Otherwise, your model is completely useless.

Primary variables (for control, confidence, guess, memory) are in part defined by the terminology found in representative formula or metabolic pathway component name. That information is used in labeling circuit as shown in models/theory that has the same features regardless of how simple or complex the intelligence system is. Even a simple feedback circuit can be formed with the algorithm even though it is not intelligent, not all of the algorithm would be used. Where it turns out that it was more than a simple feedback network whatever new that was discovered has a place in algorithm, it's already there waiting for it and figuring where it no doubt belongs is not hard.

Date: 2012/11/16 12:21:49, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 16 2012,11:48)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,11:28)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 16 2012,10:40)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,10:34)
The cell model would need a molecular intelligence algorithm, and unless it self-emerges the cellular intelligence (that controls all its motor molecules) there would need to be a cellular intelligence algorithm for each subsystem (there is more than one intelligence system running but all are cellular intelligence systems).

And your model/theory demonstrates this does it?

That is what a routine chemotaxis model already is. Where checked with theory there should be no problem finding how their chemotaxis algorithm meets the four requirements, in code. It's another case of just needing to know what you are looking for, then you find it already there, all over the place. Or end up coding one by accident, but didn't know, until I explained what it is.

So, again, you took the already existing model and inserted the word "intelligence" for no apparent reason other than it's important to you.

For systems biology it is a standard format for modeling anything in biology. Where the system is intelligent it is obvious that they are, instead of not sure because you do not begin with a standard format that easily allows such determinations to be made. Where the is a multicellular brain, same thing models that, and is from there just a matter of how many subsystems and neurons in the circuit(s) but same thing.

Date: 2012/11/16 12:45:23, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 16 2012,12:16)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,12:03)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 16 2012,11:16)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,10:22)
       
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 16 2012,09:56)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,10:04)
         
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 15 2012,23:22)
Again:
Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?


As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical. But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

how do you measure these similarities?  quantitatively, and not from the gut?

Best to model it (or conceptualize what that ends up looking right). You then have all of the variables of the algorithm(s) to monitor for comparisons. Also know for sure such things as whether new information from conjugation influenced its molecular or its cellular intelligence.

Depending on cell type there may be little or no conjugation. Where it has a centrosome we get an animal cell which can perform amazing feats, even form social-cell colonies called humans.

You're not answering the question(s). Before you can have a model that simulates something, you must have your variables defined, and in your case you must be able to measure the incremental development of "cellular intelligence."  Because no one else on earth that I know of knows how to do this, and you've made assertions regarding development of "cellular intelligence" you must have also developed a rigorous and well-defined measurement system.  BTW, "rigorous" in this context includes "well-tested," with the data to support the efficacy of the system.  Otherwise, your model is completely useless.

Primary variables (for control, confidence, guess, memory) are in part defined by the terminology found in representative formula or metabolic pathway component name. That information is used in labeling circuit as shown in models/theory that has the same features regardless of how simple or complex the intelligence system is. Even a simple feedback circuit can be formed with the algorithm even though it is not intelligent, not all of the algorithm would be used. Where it turns out that it was more than a simple feedback network whatever new that was discovered has a place in algorithm, it's already there waiting for it and figuring where it no doubt belongs is not hard.

If this is an answer, can you please tell me what the question is?  Give us the details of your measurement system and how it was tested.

This is what a standard measurement looks like:


https://sites.google.com/site.......een.png

Regardless of kind of intelligence, in this theory there is a line chart to show vital stats of the algorithm, along with representative circuit which can be drawn to help show how well it is working. That is all it needs.

I doubt you will find a comparable system anywhere else. This is not required in any other theory, where here it is really only a matter of simply showing the primary variables and circuit of the model on the screen.

Date: 2012/11/16 13:15:51, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 16 2012,12:57)

This is not a rigorously defined and tested measurement system.  There is no data. Measurement units have not been defined.  There are other significant problems, but unless you solve those two, you've created an ugly mess that's supposed to represent a "theory."

Translation:
If you present a rigorously defined and tested measurement system all carefully explained in 40+ pages of text then you must be accused of the opposite being true.
If you present a screen with line graph and circuit full of data then they must state "There is no data."
If measurement units are always for line chart 0-3 tall since confidence 3 is max and all else is there to know what you are seeing then "Measurement units have not been defined."
If that is not enough insult to injury then they give a pompous lecture as though they know what is going on, while they express their deep denial by so clearly missing the obvious. It's an excellent lesson in how to become totally scientifically dysfunction. Show them a line chart, they see no data, label them brilliant!

Date: 2012/11/16 13:37:04, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 16 2012,13:11)
A few more questions about measurement:

1. What's the smallest unit of "cellular intelligence" your measurement system can reliably measure--i.e., what is its resolution?

2.  Have you evaluated the system's repeatability and reproducibility? ("Repeatability" = the extent to which one can rely on the same measurement being made by two or more people independently; "Reproducibility" is the extent to which one can rely on one person being able to accurately measure the same thing continually)

3. Have you investigated and defined the conditions under which your system might yield unreliable results, and controlled for them?

It's like being pregnant, you are or are not. There is no resolution, all four requirements are either met are they are not, and where they are it starts self-learning then it's soon growing all over the (real or virtual) planet. You know that moment happened, in part from what shortly happens after it does. Then know why I mention that intelligence of any kind deserves respecting because of its inherent need to control all it can, and where possible even you and your ecosystem.

I have programmed so many of these models I lost count way before the first few hundred. What you see is what is needed to right away know whether it is intelligent or not, or whatever.

There are no "unreliable results" that need anything controlled for them, it's just a matter of being happy with the numbers and such that you end up with to compare with. If you must ask generalizations which confuse molecular and cellular intelligence then you will get confused answers, but that's not the theory's fault that's yours for expecting specific answers to ambiguous questions.

Date: 2012/11/16 14:16:46, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 16 2012,13:45)
Are you really saying, Gary, that you are measuring stomach contents and memory on the same y-axis scale?  What unit is shared by those two things?

The stomach system varies from 0 to full that can be considered 3. It's possible to get all fancy or smooth out the line but what I show is all you need. It's supposed to be a minimal code system. This helps keep it simple, is easy to add to.

When you have the algorithm for the first time producing intelligence, you know it.  Instead of more flat-line looking confidences including from zombie-like tropism that at first appears intelligent (but is not) the confidence curves go up exponentially with successful memories being stored in memory, it literally "comes to life" for you. But would have had to experience it, to really know what I'm talking about. Even where it just races around the screen once it's intelligent it's like a whole other thing you are seeing on the screen, that when brought into our reality has to be respected because of what it then is, highly controlling intelligence.

Date: 2012/11/16 15:14:27, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 16 2012,13:45)
Are you really saying, Gary, that you are measuring stomach contents and memory on the same y-axis scale?

And on the memory line, that is also best shown 0 to total memories that can be stored in RAM. As long as it is not perfectly flat-lined (not going up a single pixel and screen says 0 or stays 1 total memories) it's doing OK there. Where it is only going up a few pixels it likely needs optimization, such as instead of using all bits of a sensor in addressing sum it down to two bits of state changes with comparator for signal increase or decrease. It then requires less memory array space to store sense of signal rise or fall. Line chart would show better optimization by being more than a few pixels over the same amount of time. But that did not change how intelligent it is. It still senses signal rise and fall through a comparator, instead of whether sensor went from 51-52 or 52-51 which takes more bits to do the same. It's normal to not need anywhere near as much RAM as the program has to dimension to account for all unique addressing instances, so you don't want to see it quickly rising since in a model like this that indicates a serious programming bug. It's just as well to simply draw the memory line line this, or get the exact number from off the screen after so many cycles of running time, then repeat to find whether memory usage improved a small amount or not. Where optimization did not at all change its intelligence circuit/structure it lives the exact same lifetime all over again, making it easy to know nothing at all changed from it.

Date: 2012/11/16 17:20:34, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Sealawr @ Nov. 16 2012,14:21)
"the PSC award banner (that is only for award winners) is there so that no matter how well you think you're doing (making it seem that you know better than everyone else) the how-to community most knowledgeable in what else is around already made it clear what they think about it, and you cannot change that."

Could I have this translated into syntactically correct English, please?  Perhaps a complete thought will then emerge.

Seeing how some seem to think there must be something fascinating in that one, I'll try to explain it another way.

Expectations were that a Theory of Intelligent Design would have to come out of a biological lab where lab results are published in a peer reviewed journal, and all the rest you already know by heart.

But meanwhile, there was the Intelligence Generator model that came with included (now looks crappy but better than nothing) operational theory. That model combined with the ID work to become the Intelligence Design Lab that was next born at Planet Source Code. Before you know it, all the hoopla over them being there started a little protest then won award because none there mind such science fun there either.

This theory does not meet expectations because of it not having been considered that a Theory of Intelligent Design would have to come from a place like Planet Source Code where what is most important is the source code, perfect grammar optional. None there want lab papers, wrong place for publishing that. So as fate has it, the theory had to come from where it did, and belongs. To help make my last New Year one to remember Ian let me know that (to spite the ruckus from a little outside protest) I'm always welcome anytime. It's home because the theory genuinely most needs that type of environment to thrive, and probably always will.

Where you ask where the lab results are, you get the Intelligent Design Lab with included operational theory to explain how to apply that intelligent causation events and more. It's not overturning what was already found to be true in the lab, it's (for example) how to organize all the circuitry needing to be sorted out in a standard multilevel circuit form that works for unintelligent particle systems on up to living things with brains. It makes the sciences easier to connect and model. And as I earlier mentioned it is pioneering new areas of science, not overcoming areas already covered by another theory. Only makes sense it would not come from somewhere you're not used to, that you here need to be to really get around in the science being pioneered. It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing it's where the theory is from where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.

Hopefully that better translates why meeting expectations that the theory must be judged by its peer-reviewed lab journal published results is rather pointless. It becomes a way of making it seem like it's a crime for not instead having brought lab results to someone just being pompous.

Date: 2012/11/16 18:33:05, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 16 2012,16:04)
Oh, this is a doozy. Here's what you're up against.

Exasperated forum member....

   
Quote
Gary, there is no evidence that would contradict your "theory," because your "theory" is unfalsifiable. It's not coherent enough to be falsifiable.

We've already been through this. You could not think of a single prediction your "theory" makes, nor could you think of a single observation which would in your view falsify it.


The Gaulin replies....

   
Quote
That is NOT a scientific excuse for having no evidence to the contrary, it is pretending to have evidence when you don't. Like with Bob's tactic it might fool some of the people some of the time, but I think most are now understanding what is going on here.


http://talkrational.org/showthr....1024527

:D

They sure have/had a troll problem there too. But is still birthplace of the Intelligence Design Lab with of course the BobaBot critter which does somehow resemble their large font pop-art posts. When someone dropped in representing academia to look serious but it didn't work, Boba tells on me for playing YouTube videos. Total classroom wise-guy, but usually had good timing.

Date: 2012/11/16 18:53:19, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 16 2012,18:37)
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 16 2012,15:43)
 
Quote
It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing it's where the theory is from where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.

???

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra?

And this:
 
Quote
Before you know it, all the hoopla over them being there started a little protest then won award because none there mind such science fun there either.


I hope it's not incipient aphasia. Gary, have you had a checkup recently?

I don't believe I have to punctuate it, into baby-steps, to help them, figuring it out.  But here, we go:

It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing, it's where the theory is from, where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.

After having linked to the 2008 Intelligence Generator, it should have clear enough.

Date: 2012/11/16 19:04:23, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 16 2012,18:23)
Oh, we long ago stopped expecting anything from you to pass peer-review, Gary, since you've made nearly 200 comments and we have no idea what you theory is. You're literally the most incoherent advocate for Intelligent Design we've ever seen.

That's the usual trash I'm left with, where the issue is then grammar and typo's instead of the theory, which of course they can't figure out either. But I love the "we have no idea what you theory is" part! A classic troll!

Date: 2012/11/16 19:59:02, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 16 2012,15:16)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,09:04)
   
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 15 2012,23:22)
Again:
Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?


As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical.
This would be the situation in a flask inocculated with a single E. coli cell susceptible to T2 phages.  
Quote
But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.
What does your theory predict will happen if a single T2 phage is added to the culture?

Thankfully I found another more normal question to work on:

After a phage inserts itself into the host genome to be replicated the molecular intelligence memory size increases. There are then additional molecular intelligence subsystems included. It makes sense that there is more intelligence there, even though the recent gain could later become harmful.

Where the phage is deactivated it's taken out of the molecular circuit, molecular intelligence is then the same as before. Where the phage starts quickly replicating inside, the molecular intelligence and/or (without help from host systems is) phage protointelligence continues to rise. The intelligence will not drop until the phage destroys the host.Where the phage is a beneficial mitochondria that just took up residence in a cell, the molecular intelligence of the cell increases, and the cellular intelligence would be more robust and responsive from the extra energy (but not have more cellular intelligence unless it also adds more cellular level circuitry/subsystem to its schematic).

Date: 2012/11/17 04:06:43, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 16 2012,22:22)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,19:59)
   
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 16 2012,15:16)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,09:04)
         
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 15 2012,23:22)
Again:
Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?


As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical.
This would be the situation in a flask inocculated with a single E. coli cell susceptible to T2 phages.        
Quote
But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.
What does your theory predict will happen if a single T2 phage is added to the culture?

Thankfully I found another more normal question to work on:

After a phage inserts itself into the host genome to be replicated the molecular intelligence memory size increases. There are then additional molecular intelligence subsystems included. It makes sense that there is more intelligence there, even though the recent gain could later become harmful.

Where the phage is deactivated it's taken out of the molecular circuit, molecular intelligence is then the same as before. Where the phage starts quickly replicating inside, the molecular intelligence and/or (without help from host systems is) phage protointelligence continues to rise. The intelligence will not drop until the phage destroys the host.Where the phage is a beneficial mitochondria that just took up residence in a cell, the molecular intelligence of the cell increases, and the cellular intelligence would be more robust and responsive from the extra energy (but not have more cellular intelligence unless it also adds more cellular level circuitry/subsystem to its schematic).

T2 is a virulent phage that never integrates into the host genome.
Phages are virusses and have nothing to do with mitochondria which don't exist in bacteria and are actually a hallmark of eukaryotes. In addition, irrespective of the fact that they don't exist in bacteria and that the cell would be to small to harbor any what would make a mitochondrium beneficial for an E.coli cell?

I kept it general, and covered a range of phages, so I could later copy/paste that into the text of the theory.

Date: 2012/11/17 06:57:41, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Sealawr @ Nov. 16 2012,20:05)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,17:20)
I'll try to explain it another way.

......

This theory does not meet expectations because of it not having been considered that a Theory of Intelligent Design would have to come from a place like Planet Source Code where what is most important is the source code, perfect grammar optional.

....

Only makes sense it would not come from somewhere you're not used to, that you here need to be to really get around in the science being pioneered. It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing it's where the theory is from where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.

Hopefully that better translates why meeting expectations that the theory must be judged by its peer-reviewed lab journal published results is rather pointless. It becomes a way of making it seem like it's a crime for not instead having brought lab results to someone just being pompous.


Yes.  Thank you.  That clarifies things immensely.

I now understand what we are dealing with.

It’s hard to tell whether you’re being serious or not. But in this case there was an Intelligence Generator in great need of better explained text for its Theory Of Operation, that took on a life of its own after having to explain the modeling of intelligent causation events, and other things that are only possible with this model.

Even though that is just how the science works out, by any other title I’m accused of dishonestly slipping the theory in under radar. Where I title it Theory of Intelligent Design I’m condemned for calling it what it honestly became.

What I got stuck in the middle of made it clearly obvious that science went to hell via arm-chair philosophy that can stop any politically inconvenient scientific theory. Constantly being expected to perform religious miracles is only indication of how disgracefully messed up things actually are. Scientific theory is no longer explaining how something works using scientific models, it’s a question and answer religious tribunal where scientific models cannot be accepted.

Even though it’s what you might consider a stick in the mud place Planet Source Code is here at the aid of science, at a time when ones who were supposed to be helping settle this scientific issue were scientifically useless. Sorry for having to be as honest as I possibly can.

Date: 2012/11/17 07:19:35, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 16 2012,15:51)
the worst thing about it is that fucking planet source code image is hotlinked from their site!

Gary, upload it to imageshack or something for pitys sake!

I have to admit that was a good idea. It now links to the intelligenceprograms site, both from here and other forum where I have it in the signature line getting some hits. It started as a spur of the moment idea, to see how it would look, that ended up staying.

Date: 2012/11/17 08:01:26, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 16 2012,22:28)
 
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 16 2012,22:22)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,19:59)
       
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 16 2012,15:16)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,09:04)
             
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 15 2012,23:22)
Again:
Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?


As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical.
This would be the situation in a flask inocculated with a single E. coli cell susceptible to T2 phages.            
Quote
But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.
What does your theory predict will happen if a single T2 phage is added to the culture?

Thankfully I found another more normal question to work on:

After a phage inserts itself into the host genome to be replicated the molecular intelligence memory size increases. There are then additional molecular intelligence subsystems included. It makes sense that there is more intelligence there, even though the recent gain could later become harmful.

Where the phage is deactivated it's taken out of the molecular circuit, molecular intelligence is then the same as before. Where the phage starts quickly replicating inside, the molecular intelligence and/or (without help from host systems is) phage protointelligence continues to rise. The intelligence will not drop until the phage destroys the host.Where the phage is a beneficial mitochondria that just took up residence in a cell, the molecular intelligence of the cell increases, and the cellular intelligence would be more robust and responsive from the extra energy (but not have more cellular intelligence unless it also adds more cellular level circuitry/subsystem to its schematic).

T2 is a virulent phage that never integrates into the host genome.
Phages are virusses and have nothing to do with mitochondria which don't exist in bacteria and are actually a hallmark of eukaryotes. In addition, irrespective of the fact that they don't exist in bacteria and that the cell would be to small to harbor any what would make a mitochondrium beneficial for an E.coli cell?

Be that as it may be. How does your theory explain that the vast majority of infected cells die while some (very few indeed) survive? Remember that the bacteria are derived from a single cell and all phages in the system are derived from a single phage. How do the surviving cells differ from their relatives in terms of what you think is "intelligence"? And how does this "intelligence" make them survive?

The theory explains why the vast majority of infected cells die while some survive, by modeling it. And it looks like you're the one most into the T2 phage process. So model it as described in theory then show what you end up with for changing circuits and variables over the course of the infection cycle(s).

Date: 2012/11/17 10:11:49, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
I can add that it’s not necessary to reinvent an existing model. It’s how the circuit is drawn out that is most important.  The “set-points” of metabolic pathways that can induce transposition or hypermutation belong up top in its Hedonic System as a confidence level hooked up to a guess block for that type of guess. Information from conjugation may end up in a plasmid/chromosome RAM, where the data can include data that inactivates the gene data, or increases expression level. What you end up with for circuit diagram(s) is then comparable to others sorted out to show the self-learning intelligence system existing in the system being modeled.

For molecular intelligence you end up having to include 3D address changing (as opposed to data changing) transposition guesses in a genome memory system. Exactly how to draw that in might require some experimentation, but there are already methods for illustrating metabolic pathway circuits. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel, just be the first to most neatly draw out the circuits including transposition and other things that in any model is hard to show in cognitive model circuit form. You here in turn end up helping to pioneer standard methods needed for systems biology.

Date: 2012/11/17 17:46:04, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
I went through what else I had online to help explain. I have one below for showing the typical David Heiserman type circuitry from his book “How to Build Your Own Self-Programming Robot”:



I keep the next one for Spark 2 to show an insect based cognitive system. Note the sensory to the left that includes internal state variables and preprocessing, into mushroom body RAM that connects to motors. Above that is the central complex and what they called a decision layer, in the ID model that is the confidence circuitry.  


http://ec.europa.eu/informa....e_2.pdf

Since a genome is also a self-learning system (with sensing into memory that controls molecular motor systems) it’s following what the cognitive sciences and robotics has for drawing out the circuit you have. Here’s a good example of what cell sensory looks like when similarly drawn:

http://www.genome.jp/kegg.......20.html

You could just draw metabolic pathways like that to left, with the DNA-RAM (genes) in the center, then to the right the motors (molecular system that causes change in action or produce forces that do work inside the cell).

For molecular intelligence, the guess part of the circuit is mysterious, but still relatively straightforward. There is just not much known about how transpositions and other guess producing mechanisms work. But it’s then being at the forefront of that knowledge, having already established the circuit to make sense of what it is for, in the circuit.

Where the circuit is further morphed to include Arnold Trehub’s model for the human brain (that works well for chemotaxis too) we get the newest illustration to show the full intelligent causation model.


http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....ub....b
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....er9.pdf


A cell biologist ends up on the same page with what’s happening in other science fields for drawing out circuits, and what's at Planet Source Code where that concept was already taken to the level of Theory of Intelligent Design. The reason others have no problem with that, is because it is in fact a darn good all-purpose cognitive model, that works so good it can cover intelligent causation too.

Date: 2012/11/18 07:58:23, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 17 2012,23:58)
I am sure your theory also describes why lunatics are spamming the web. And it not only looks like you are an idiot extraordinaire. So, model your idiocy as described in theory and keep what you end up with for yourself.

The only thing I can say to something so nonsensical, is: Vigilante science (like found in this forum) only exists in forums for bashing ID, Creationism and religion. It's not a problem at all at FractalForums, Biology-Online and other serious math/science or science education forums. In fact, the contrast helps show how religious driven it actually is in a forum like this one. Someone like you is always there to tell me what I already knew in grade school, while putting on an act to make it seem I have no knowledge of science.

As you saw from last page, I have good reason to expect a better biological model from you, before being able to take you seriously. Having none is typical for someone with no experience in other areas of science required for a functional scientific understanding of what biological intelligence is, and have modeled it enough to know what its main features are.

Needing to discredit other scientific communities in order to make yourself appear to be the authority in how intelligence works, is not the sign of a biologist who has to model incredibly complex systems. They appreciate all the ideas they can get. Protest has been from where none need science, for their religious discussions.

Date: 2012/11/18 10:39:00, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 18 2012,09:48)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,18:53)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 16 2012,18:37)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 16 2012,15:43)
   
Quote
It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing it's where the theory is from where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.

???

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra?

And this:
   
Quote
Before you know it, all the hoopla over them being there started a little protest then won award because none there mind such science fun there either.


I hope it's not incipient aphasia. Gary, have you had a checkup recently?

I don't believe I have to punctuate it, into baby-steps, to help them, figuring it out.  But here, we go:

It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing, it's where the theory is from, where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.

After having linked to the 2008 Intelligence Generator, it should have clear enough.

Gary, is English your first language? Or eighth? You should stop struggling with this crutch and lay out your theory in your native language.  No worries; we'll have it translated.  I only suggest this for your benefit.

Quick question. Why did you choose a response to the tactic of making an issue out of typos, from all the rest of my responses in the thread?

Date: 2012/11/18 12:25:29, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
After covering chemical/biological speciation and a hundred or so other things, there should be good questions pertaining to all that. It’s instead like trying to carry on a discussion with someone with their fingers in their ears continually telling you they can’t understand a word you’re saying.

Date: 2012/11/18 13:50:36, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 18 2012,12:41)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 18 2012,12:25)
After covering chemical/biological speciation and a hundred or so other things, there should be good questions pertaining to all that. It’s instead like trying to carry on a discussion with someone with their fingers in their ears continually telling you they can’t understand a word you’re saying.

It's not fingers in our ears, Gary. It's pebbles in your mouth. And you are sadly no Demosthenes.

After reading his bio, I'm OK with not being Demosthenes!

Quote
Demosthenes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Demosthenes (English pronunciation: /d??m?s.??ni?z/, Greek: ??????????, D?mosthén?s [d??most?én??s]; 384–322 BC) was a prominent Greek statesman and orator of ancient Athens. His orations constitute a significant expression of contemporary Athenian intellectual prowess and provide an insight into the politics and culture of ancient Greece during the 4th century BC. Demosthenes learned rhetoric by studying the speeches of previous great orators. He delivered his first judicial speeches at the age of 20, in which he argued effectively to gain from his guardians what was left of his inheritance. For a time, Demosthenes made his living as a professional speech-writer (logographer) and a lawyer, writing speeches for use in private legal suits.

Demosthenes grew interested in politics during his time as a logographer, and in 354 BC he gave his first public political speeches. He went on to devote his most productive years to opposing Macedon's expansion. He idealized his city and strove throughout his life to restore Athens' supremacy and motivate his compatriots against Philip II of Macedon. He sought to preserve his city's freedom and to establish an alliance against Macedon, in an unsuccessful attempt to impede Philip's plans to expand his influence southwards by conquering all the other Greek states. After Philip's death, Demosthenes played a leading part in his city's uprising against the new King of Macedonia, Alexander the Great. However, his efforts failed and the revolt was met with a harsh Macedonian reaction. To prevent a similar revolt against his own rule, Alexander's successor in this region, Antipater, sent his men to track Demosthenes down. Demosthenes took his own life, in order to avoid being arrested by Archias, Antipater's confidant.

Date: 2012/11/18 15:04:09, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 18 2012,14:04)
Like it or not, Gary, the bottom line is that you can't express yourself. I can't tell whether it means that you can't think straight, but that's irrelevant. No one here has any idea what your theory is simply because you are unable to explain it succinctly.

You know how I choose which scientific papers to read? I read abstracts (short summaries). When an abstract sounds promising I read the paper. Your abstract doesn't sound promising. And having sampled some of your prose, I don't think the papers are worth my time.

Could I be wrong? Of course. But that's your problem, not mine. It's a free world and I spend my time as I please.

Considering how in some areas of science no good deed goes unpunished, I seriously do not have the time or resources to go over this all over again for you. After such a successful crusade to drive people like me out of science and into poverty, just be thankful my phone service is still on and I’m online.

Date: 2012/11/18 17:42:00, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 18 2012,15:38)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 18 2012,21:04)
Considering how in some areas of science no good deed goes unpunished, I seriously do not have the time or resources to go over this all over again for you.

Yes you do. Proof of that will come when you land at yet another forum posting exactly the same stuff as you've been doing for the last 5 years.

       
Quote
After such a successful crusade to drive people like me out of science and into poverty, just be thankful my phone service is still on and I’m online.

You were never in science in the first place, Gary.

Gary, every place you arrive and present your work you are met with the exact same criticisms....

1) You are incoherent - that means people cannot understand what you are talking about.

2) Your work is incoherent - that means people cannot understand what it means.

3) You do not understand the nature of a scientific theory - having a badge from Planet Source Code does not in any way prove otherwise.

4) You steadfastly refuse to make any predictions based on your theory that people can test to see if the theory is useful.

Do you see the pattern here, Gary?

Now, you can do one of two things.

A) Take the criticism seriously (seeing that everywhere you go it's the same).

B) Cry about how the man is keeping scientific mavericks like you down; and then find another forum to post your stuff - rinse and repeat.

My money's on B.

I see your pattern, and know the drill. It’s the usual political rhetoric used to stop politically inconvenient scientific theory from being written. That’s why I have not been wasting all my time trying to please ones with fingers in their ears at forums like this one, and can be found (among other places) on Planet Source Code where they (surprise!) only care how well the code/model/theory performs.

So, as Demosthenes might say: I am not here because I need your sympathy! I am now here because you need mine!

Date: 2012/11/18 18:19:49, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 18 2012,16:58)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 18 2012,15:04)
After such a successful crusade to drive people like me out of science and into poverty, just be thankful my phone service is still on and I’m online.

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

[Number 34 on the Crackpot Index.]

As I earlier explained, the problem is from protesting crackpots who only in their own minds are representative of "scientific establishment" which has no problem with me being here, helping you with your science work.

Date: 2012/11/18 18:38:35, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 18 2012,18:30)
So it's B then.

If your game is to make it appear that I "do not understand the nature of a scientific theory" then you were already taken as seriously as you deserve.

Date: 2012/11/19 07:08:09, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 19 2012,01:05)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 18 2012,18:38)
   
Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 18 2012,18:30)
So it's B then.

If your game is to make it appear that I "do not understand the nature of a scientific theory" then you were already taken as seriously as you deserve.

Can you explain your definition of a scientific theory in less than 100 coherent and unambigious words?

Can you name one capable judge besides your exalted self?

Can you?

Some readers might already be annoyed by my repeating the same thing over and over again, but to reiterate: A scientific theory is a scientific model to scientifically experiment with, which explains how something (such as intelligent cause) works. There is also religious theory (for example Genesis) therefore the only question is whether the Theory of Intelligent Design is a scientific theory or religious theory.

Those who need additional requirements are self-appointing themselves as judges in order to deem that it is not a theory of any kind. Claiming they cannot even understand the theory only helps show how scientifically irresponsible it is to let them be the final judge of anything.

Date: 2012/11/19 08:19:04, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Oh and (where you check) you'll find that theories are normally published in book form. There is now the internet changing where people find reading material, and areas of science which need to exchange code (not lab-results).  Demanding that a theory has to first be presented in a short science journal article is another attempt at ignoring the already existing theory.

Date: 2012/11/19 15:47:29, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,10:47)
It's worse than that.  It's not even clear how your "model" is related to your "theory".  How do you get from "I've written some software which mimics certain aspects of animal behaviour" to "Therefore, molecules are intelligent"?

This is a good time to again mention the (earlier linked to) Wiki for a Theory Of Operation, standard practice in electronics and engineering. You're supposed to have one for any circuit or system one designs, it's not something taken to some journal tribunal for approval as a theory:

   
Quote
Theory Of Operation

A theory of operation is a description of how a device or system should work. It is often included in documentation, especially maintenance/service documentation, or a user manual. It aids troubleshooting by providing the troubleshooter with a mental model of how the system is supposed to work. The troubleshooter can then more easily identify discrepancies, to aid diagnosis of problem.


Science teachers can just explain the above.

And the full title of the theory download is "Intelligence Design Laboratory and its Theory of Operation the Theory of Intelligent Design"

I wrote a "Theory of Operation" for an intelligence system that allows experimentation with intelligent causation events. There should be no issue at all whether it is a theory or not. Needing to make an issue out of it, right away indicates something not right in science. Problem here, is a definition for theory that is so outside of standard scientific practice that those who use it are repeating the mostly useless "layman's definition" for theory and hypothesis. I have to go by the definitions that serious scientists/engineers use. There is then no question of whether it is a theory or not.

Date: 2012/11/19 16:14:46, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,15:52)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,13:47)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,10:47)
It's worse than that.  It's not even clear how your "model" is related to your "theory".  How do you get from "I've written some software which mimics certain aspects of animal behaviour" to "Therefore, molecules are intelligent"?

This is a good time to again mention the (earlier linked to) Wiki for a Theory Of Operation, standard practice in electronics and engineering. You're supposed to have one for any circuit or system one designs, it's not something taken to some journal tribunal for approval as a theory:

     
Quote
Theory Of Operation

A theory of operation is a description of how a device or system should work. It is often included in documentation, especially maintenance/service documentation, or a user manual. It aids troubleshooting by providing the troubleshooter with a mental model of how the system is supposed to work. The troubleshooter can then more easily identify discrepancies, to aid diagnosis of problem.


Science teachers can just explain the above.

And the full title of the theory download is "Intelligence Design Laboratory and its Theory of Operation the Theory of Intelligent Design"

I wrote a "Theory of Operation" for an intelligence system that allows experimentation with intelligent causation events. There should be no issue at all whether it is a theory or not. Needing to make an issue out of it, right away indicates something not right in science. Problem here, is a definition for theory that is so outside of standard scientific practice that those who use it are repeating the mostly useless "layman's definition" for theory and hypothesis. I have to go by the definitions that serious scientists/engineers use. There is then no question of whether it is a theory or not.

A lot of words.  None of them appear to answer my question: How do you get from "I've written some software which mimics certain aspects of animal behaviour" to "Therefore, molecules are intelligent"?

You're still just trying to get out of having to know what you are talking about.

If you have a better model and theory to explain "intelligent cause" then present it. Otherwise, your question is scientifically irrelevant.

Date: 2012/11/19 16:34:52, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,16:18)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,14:14)
You're still just trying to get out of having to know what you are talking about.

If you have a better model and theory to explain "intelligent cause" then present it. Otherwise, your question is scientifically irrelevant.

No-one has to explain "intelligent cause" until you've shown that it exists, Gary.  You haven't done that.

Maybe this one might jog your memory:


https://sites.google.com/site.......ion.GIF

Date: 2012/11/19 17:28:21, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,17:09)
Gary, until you've shown that the natural world - not your code - works this way, this is just an assertion.

So was the model/theory of Charles Darwin and any other theorist who ever lived.

Your argument is still irrelevant.

But here is an exceptional sound/music visualization video worth studying for a little while:

Goa Saga: Chapter 139 - 140 (bpm)

Our ears sense a sound wavelength spectrum, that neurally streams through our brain, somewhat like that.

Date: 2012/11/19 20:13:17, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
I have one at ISCID too:

http://www.iscid.org/ubb........#000000

Date: 2012/11/19 20:29:51, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 19 2012,19:33)
Gary, you might want to check out the Creating CSI with NS thread. There, you'll find Jerry Don Bauer. Jerry is a sucker who fell for CSI and believes ID is a productive area of research (It's not. It's a sham. That's why they shut down their 'research journal' after Judge Jones's ruling. No real scientific movement would ever do that.) You'll find people criticising everything he says. That he misuses terms, has errors in logic, etc. But unlike you, Gary, you won't find lots of people telling him he's totally incoherent. Because while Jerry is wrong, and pretty clueless, he writes sentences that are easy to understand. That are formed into coherent paragraphs. We understand what he thinks his theory says. In contrast, everywhere you go, scientists say your stuff is incomprehensible gibberish. You need to try to understand what that means, but I doubt you will.

Jerry might know the most likely answer to this still unanswered question:

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,22:38)
 One (of the following) was taken from a Fasta file for an actual organism (you would say product of unintelligent random mutation) and the other I myself designed (not a product of unintelligent random mutation):

1) GGATGAGA

2) AAAAAAAAAA

Which of the two is a product of what you call "random mutation" and which is not (because I myself just made it up and whatever)?

Date: 2012/11/20 07:20:56, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 20 2012,00:45)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,15:28)
     
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,17:09)
Gary, until you've shown that the natural world - not your code - works this way, this is just an assertion.

So was the model/theory of Charles Darwin and any other theorist who ever lived.

Your argument is still irrelevant.

Bullshit.

Charles Darwin presented evidence.  Evidence from the natural world.  And he showed how his theory explained that evidence.  And he, and subsequent scientists, found new evidence which further supported the theory, and failed to find any evidence which contradicted it.

It's called science, Gary.  You may have heard of it.

Meanwhile, what have you done?  Written a VB program.  Asserted, without showing evidence and without engaging real-world data in any way, that this program supports, even proves, your notion that molecules are intelligent.  That's it.

It's like claiming that World of Warcraft proves the existence of magic.

As earlier explained and linked to, the big-wigs of his day were suggesting Charles Darwin was a drunken bum who needs help for his mental condition. His theory was disgraced out of science. His only friend (Thomas Huxley) later become a hero, because of Charles having been so scientifically friendless. It took 30 years for the "scientific community" to even care about him or his theory. And considering how he could not describe a testable mechanism (DNA) you would have right away joined the science by consensus, chorus of insults.

You do not even know your science history. As a result, you were doomed to repeat it.

Date: 2012/11/20 15:51:12, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 20 2012,11:41)
Again Gary -
If its such shit-hot science, why are you here trolling things up here rather than participating in real scientific venues?

Such as?

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 20 2012,11:41)
Actually, why do you have a long history of trolling venues *like* this?

For years my home was the Kansas Citizens For Science forum. The public hearing controversy attracted professors who wanted to help resolve the conflict. It was the place to be. But with all later going surprisingly well in Kansas, the scientists eventually went back to their usual science work. The forum was later archived/closed which was a shock to me, but in this case it was much because of mission accomplished.

I was like lost without a forum home. And since this is another for ending the ID controversy, if things go as well here then this forum will eventually end along with it. Not be needed anymore. Which is a good thing, not bad thing.

Date: 2012/11/20 17:00:20, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 20 2012,14:41)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,14:34)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,16:18)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,14:14)
You're still just trying to get out of having to know what you are talking about.

If you have a better model and theory to explain "intelligent cause" then present it. Otherwise, your question is scientifically irrelevant.

No-one has to explain "intelligent cause" until you've shown that it exists, Gary.  You haven't done that.

Maybe this one might jog your memory:


https://sites.google.com/site.......ion.GIF

Gary, according to the image you posted, you're apparently claiming that intelligent cause comes into play somewhere between the behavior of matter system and the molecular intelligence system. You go from behavioral cause to intelligent cause. What exactly happens at the point where behavioral cause changes to intelligent cause and what causes that change? Also, what, if anything, causes the behavior of matter?


The theory explains "behavior of matter" as:
Quote
Behavior of matter is produced by electromagnetic force created atomic bonds and intermolecular interactions (covalent, polar covalent, van der Waals polar force, ionic, metallic, hydrogen) and follows the “laws of physics”. This is covered by Atomic Theory, which describes the atoms in the model’s particle system environment. Behavior of matter can only respond to exteroceptive stimuli one way, such as bonding with another molecule or not, therefore has two of four requirements for intelligence (but does not by itself qualify as intelligence). It is not possible to rule out intelligence at this behavior level, but with no scientific evidence existing for this the behavior of matter is assumed to not require intelligence to produce intelligence, the origin of intelligent life.

The "behavior" of matter does not need to be "intelligent". When a behavior is intelligent we have "intelligent behavior" which is normally just called "intelligent".

Since the top level "Behavior" of Matter does not qualify as intelligent (but cannot be ruled out) the first causation event is most appropriately "Behavioral Cause" of the Molecular Intelligence. It would be wrong to call it "Intelligent Cause" and "Unintelligent Cause" is incorrect due to not being able to rule that out. Scientific logic here finds only one logical naming convention.

Since Molecular Intelligence does qualify as intelligence, the second causation event is "Intelligent Cause" of Cellular Intelligence. Scientific logic finds only one logical naming convention, to use thereafter.

Because of going from particle-system to molecular intelligence being aBioGenesis just making the first (Behavioral) Cause event happen would be astonishing. You then soon have replicating cells. There would then be a good chance that (technology willing) it can keep going past there to next produce the first Intelligent Cause event, to have cells swimming around. There would then be a great chance it can on its own achieve the next Intelligent Cause event, producing multicellularity.

Date: 2012/11/20 17:44:10, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 20 2012,17:08)
 
Quote
Since Molecular Intelligence does qualify as intelligence, the second causation event is "Intelligent Cause" of Cellular Intelligence. Scientific logic finds only one logical naming convention, to use thereafter.



Why? What exactly is the guess/remember/choose behaviour of real world molecules, as opposed to your digital pets? Which molecules are you talking about here?

Duh? I have been explaining molecular intelligence guess mechanisms such as transpositions which change Address, and hypermutation of gene and/or regulation Data, with plenty more in the theory. Please try to pay attention.

Date: 2012/11/20 18:35:39, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 20 2012,18:16)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 20 2012,16:15)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 20 2012,15:51)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 20 2012,11:41)
Again Gary -
If its such shit-hot science, why are you here trolling things up here rather than participating in real scientific venues?

Such as?

     
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 20 2012,11:41)
Actually, why do you have a long history of trolling venues *like* this?

For years my home was the Kansas Citizens For Science forum. The public hearing controversy attracted professors who wanted to help resolve the conflict. It was the place to be. But with all later going surprisingly well in Kansas, the scientists eventually went back to their usual science work. The forum was later archived/closed which was a shock to me, but in this case it was much because of mission accomplished.

I was like lost without a forum home. And since this is another for ending the ID controversy, if things go as well here then this forum will eventually end along with it. Not be needed anymore. Which is a good thing, not bad thing.

Gary, I hate to piss on your cornflakes, but we've got a *lousy* track record as an incubator for paradigm changing scientific discoveries. We're almost as bad as "Planet Source Code" in that regard. We really good at pointing and  laughing at trolls, shitty science and religion pretending to be science, hence your current Butthurt.

Now it appears you have it in for science as it currently exists, with its falsification, making predictions, peer review, etc.

That would make this the worst venue for you, as we're just going to laugh at you even more. So keep writing VB that gets 5 stars, by all means, but we're just going to laugh at you and science doesn't care about you because you're not saying anything scientific. And if you think the rest of the world will change it's definition to meet your's through posting here, you're more tragic than I thought.

Gary. ^ This ^.

From looking at what you need, you already did a fantastic job explaining why this forum has a *lousy* track record as an incubator for paradigm changing scientific discoveries. What more could you add?

Date: 2012/11/20 19:05:34, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 20 2012,18:40)
So why the fuck are you here?

Metaphorically speaking: All systems are go for liftoff.
 
The Final Countdown

Hang-on the best you can, enjoy the ride:

Date: 2012/11/20 22:59:25, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 20 2012,21:21)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 20 2012,19:05)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 20 2012,18:40)
So why the fuck are you here?

Metaphorically speaking: All systems are go for liftoff.
 
The Final Countdown

Hang-on the best you can, enjoy the ride:

Sorry, I have vertigo... I'll just watch and then try not to giggle as you pull a North Korea...

I had a feeling you were easily dizzied. But after so well strapping yourself into the ride with J-Dog now waving the lit sparklers for you from underneath the big rocket booster looking thingies, the only way out now, is to hurry up and press the button in your capsule that says MAIN THRUSTERS ON.

Date: 2012/11/20 23:34:52, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 20 2012,17:00)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 20 2012,14:41)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,14:34)
       
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,16:18)
           
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,14:14)
You're still just trying to get out of having to know what you are talking about.

If you have a better model and theory to explain "intelligent cause" then present it. Otherwise, your question is scientifically irrelevant.

No-one has to explain "intelligent cause" until you've shown that it exists, Gary.  You haven't done that.

Maybe this one might jog your memory:


https://sites.google.com/site.......ion.GIF

Gary, according to the image you posted, you're apparently claiming that intelligent cause comes into play somewhere between the behavior of matter system and the molecular intelligence system. You go from behavioral cause to intelligent cause. What exactly happens at the point where behavioral cause changes to intelligent cause and what causes that change? Also, what, if anything, causes the behavior of matter?


The theory explains "behavior of matter" as:
   
Quote
Behavior of matter is produced by electromagnetic force created atomic bonds and intermolecular interactions (covalent, polar covalent, van der Waals polar force, ionic, metallic, hydrogen) and follows the “laws of physics”. This is covered by Atomic Theory, which describes the atoms in the model’s particle system environment. Behavior of matter can only respond to exteroceptive stimuli one way, such as bonding with another molecule or not, therefore has two of four requirements for intelligence (but does not by itself qualify as intelligence). It is not possible to rule out intelligence at this behavior level, but with no scientific evidence existing for this the behavior of matter is assumed to not require intelligence to produce intelligence, the origin of intelligent life.

The "behavior" of matter does not need to be "intelligent". When a behavior is intelligent we have "intelligent behavior" which is normally just called "intelligent".

Since the top level "Behavior" of Matter does not qualify as intelligent (but cannot be ruled out) the first causation event is most appropriately "Behavioral Cause" of the Molecular Intelligence. It would be wrong to call it "Intelligent Cause" and "Unintelligent Cause" is incorrect due to not being able to rule that out. Scientific logic here finds only one logical naming convention.

Since Molecular Intelligence does qualify as intelligence, the second causation event is "Intelligent Cause" of Cellular Intelligence. Scientific logic finds only one logical naming convention, to use thereafter.

Because of going from particle-system to molecular intelligence being aBioGenesis just making the first (Behavioral) Cause event happen would be astonishing. You then soon have replicating cells. There would then be a good chance that (technology willing) it can keep going past there to next produce the first Intelligent Cause event, to have cells swimming around. There would then be a great chance it can on its own achieve the next Intelligent Cause event, producing multicellularity.

I need to add: Due to the logic/terminology of a reciprocal causation model like this only fitting together one way, for anyone on any side of the issue, not getting it right leads to an avalanche of illogic that only gets worse with time. As I earlier mentioned with Creation Science, one thing leads to another then the conclusion is that as an intelligence the Creator/God was somehow born knowing nothing at all, the Greek/Roman God system. For scientists who think they have it all figured out already they are soon lost in unscientific territory talking about such things as “intelligent molecules” while I explain the very basics of cognitive science, as it applies to genetics.

The logic fits together in a way that makes there no scientific way out of having to accept the theory and its terminology.

Date: 2012/11/21 16:58:11, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 21 2012,09:49)
Yeah, you guys, "Molecular Intelligence System" doesn't mean the molecules are intelligent. Jeez. It means... uh... intelligence made of molecules... or something.


It's a scientific concept:

   
Quote
Course 4190.626: Molecular Intelligence (Knowledge Representation and Reasoning)

School of Computer Science and Engineering,
Seoul National University

http://bi.snu.ac.kr/Courses....02.html

Date: 2012/11/21 18:50:52, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,17:48)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,16:58)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 21 2012,09:49)
Yeah, you guys, "Molecular Intelligence System" doesn't mean the molecules are intelligent. Jeez. It means... uh... intelligence made of molecules... or something.


It's a scientific concept:

       
Quote
Course 4190.626: Molecular Intelligence (Knowledge Representation and Reasoning)

School of Computer Science and Engineering,
Seoul National University

http://bi.snu.ac.kr/Courses....02.html

What Prof. Zhang is talking about, sure. In Zhang's introductory PowerPoint lecture, he has a graphic showing that the junction of "molecular computing" with "artificial intelligence" yields "molecular intelligence". In other words, artificial intelligence that is achieved using molecular computing techniques.

You, though, are not talking about the same thing as Zhang is when you say "molecular intelligence". What you have going there has a name: equivocation.


This theory is for summing up the cognitive basics (needed to know what “intelligence” at any level is) using a high school simple model where one of four levels is “molecular intelligence” and is where their “molecular intelligence” detail (like self-assembling DNA) is added into this model.



The last link I gave leads to papers on molecular intelligence systems to solve the traveling salesman problem and other things that that are a challenge to completely figure out, for you to feast on this Thanksgiving. Where the code IDeas you get from there must go, is clearly and precisely labeled...

Date: 2012/11/21 19:23:41, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,18:56)
I've seen the diagram, thanks.

What you call "molecular intelligence" is not what Prof. Zhang calls "molecular intelligence".

Can you scrape together enough honesty to acknowledge this?

In this theory there is an algorithm/circuit that defines "molecular intelligence" so of course it's defined another way but that's the way it's supposed to be. We're both talking about the same thing.

Date: 2012/11/21 20:03:06, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 21 2012,19:28)
*popcorn*

Gary got caught bullshitting and now has Butthurt. You realise the next step is someone will contact Prof. Zhang and he'll have to find a nice way to say "tell this cargo cult science crank to fuck off"?

Considering how this forum has been ridiculing "molecular intelligence" and didn't even know or care about about their work, I'm the only one here who knew or cared about it.

Over the years I spent enough time familiarizing myself with the resources that are presented there. And as you can see I highly recommend it, theory loves it!

Date: 2012/11/21 20:14:50, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,19:39)
You are using the same phrase, yes. But you just noted that they have different definitions. "Go" can mean directed movement to a destination, a board game, or even bodily waste excretion. The meanings differ, and the significance to discussion can critically differ.

The scientific concept of Prof. Zhang that he calls "molecular intelligence" is doing artificial intelligence with molecular computing. Saying "It is a scientific concept" when "it" refers to Prof. Zhang's concept is true.

However, that "it" and your conception of "molecular intelligence" are not the same thing. It is not the *same* "it" as your "it". Referencing Prof. Zhang does nothing at all to support your claim that "it", meaning your concept that you call "molecular intelligence", has any scientific basis or validity whatsoever. You have to substantiate that in some other fashion for it to be valid.

But thanks for at least acknowledging that you and Prof. Zhang have defined your concepts in a different way. I see that as a sort of breakthrough moment in your history of discussion with other people.

You didn't even know about them until now. And how everyone at the School of Computer Science and Engineering defines it does not matter to a model where there is simply an algorithm/circuit at that intelligence level, not opinion made by my stringing words together.

Date: 2012/11/21 21:04:46, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,20:43)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,20:14)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,19:39)
You are using the same phrase, yes. But you just noted that they have different definitions. "Go" can mean directed movement to a destination, a board game, or even bodily waste excretion. The meanings differ, and the significance to discussion can critically differ.

The scientific concept of Prof. Zhang that he calls "molecular intelligence" is doing artificial intelligence with molecular computing. Saying "It is a scientific concept" when "it" refers to Prof. Zhang's concept is true.

However, that "it" and your conception of "molecular intelligence" are not the same thing. It is not the *same* "it" as your "it". Referencing Prof. Zhang does nothing at all to support your claim that "it", meaning your concept that you call "molecular intelligence", has any scientific basis or validity whatsoever. You have to substantiate that in some other fashion for it to be valid.

But thanks for at least acknowledging that you and Prof. Zhang have defined your concepts in a different way. I see that as a sort of breakthrough moment in your history of discussion with other people.

You didn't even know about them until now. And how everyone at the School of Computer Science and Engineering defines it does not matter to a model where there is simply an algorithm/circuit at that intelligence level, not opinion made by my stringing words together.

I went to your provided link to determine if it actually supported *your* concept.

It didn't.

It supported a *different* concept that is known by the same phrase you use.

You are right that how Prof. Zhang defines "molecular intelligence" does not matter a bit to a different concept called by the same phrase. That is precisely why linking to Prof. Zhang's work does not support your claim that your concept is scientific, because one concept *has nothing to do with the other*.

It doesn't matter one bit that I had no prior familiarity with Prof. Zhang and his work. You should note that I have not complained in past posts about your use of the phrase "molecular intelligence" as a name for your concept. What matters is that you have not and are not supporting the claim you made *about* your concept, which is defined differently from Prof. Zhang's concept.

You sure must be a genius to have in that short amount of time at least a little bit familiarized yourself with all the homework they have for you there.

I have no idea what your operational definition for "scientific concept" is but I'm not surprised you believe it is not one and I'm now stuck in yet another semantics argument with you. Now you need  straw-man argument to make it appear that my also easily accounting for what deserves the scientific name "molecular intelligence" is a problem, instead of another indication that this theory is in fact a very good model of reality.

Date: 2012/11/21 21:36:33, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 21 2012,21:19)
I'm sorry Gary, but you are simply dishonest. There is no commonality between the work of Prof. Zhang and your VB script other than the phrase "molecular intelligence" which you both use to mean very different things.

Prove it by showing their model which explains "molecular intelligence" in context with "behavior of matter", "cellular intelligence" and "multicellular intelligence" with the algorithm/circuit you are suggesting exists at that site.

You will find none, because they do not write theory to unify such scientific concepts. That's what the Theory of Intelligent Design is for.

Date: 2012/11/21 22:01:31, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,17:48)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,16:58)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 21 2012,09:49)
Yeah, you guys, "Molecular Intelligence System" doesn't mean the molecules are intelligent. Jeez. It means... uh... intelligence made of molecules... or something.


It's a scientific concept:

       
Quote
Course 4190.626: Molecular Intelligence (Knowledge Representation and Reasoning)

School of Computer Science and Engineering,
Seoul National University

http://bi.snu.ac.kr/Courses....02.html

What Prof. Zhang is talking about, sure. In Zhang's introductory PowerPoint lecture, he has a graphic showing that the junction of "molecular computing" with "artificial intelligence" yields "molecular intelligence". In other words, artificial intelligence that is achieved using molecular computing techniques.

You, though, are not talking about the same thing as Zhang is when you say "molecular intelligence". What you have going there has a name: equivocation.

They are referencing standard learning and memory material that likewise supports the theory, because both are explaining the same thing!

And you should know that in real-science the best possible thing to have to make all that simple is a model that can unify such concepts. It shows that other researchers are not "equivocation" either, intelligence does exist at the molecular level. You just don't want to admit that I am right about that too.

Date: 2012/11/21 22:26:55, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 21 2012,21:42)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,21:36)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 21 2012,21:19)
I'm sorry Gary, but you are simply dishonest. There is no commonality between the work of Prof. Zhang and your VB script other than the phrase "molecular intelligence" which you both use to mean very different things.

Prove it by showing their model which explains "molecular intelligence" in context with "behavior of matter", "cellular intelligence" and "multicellular intelligence" with the algorithm/circuit you are suggesting exists at that site.

You will find none, because they do not write theory to unify such scientific concepts. That's what the Theory of Intelligent Design is for.

Let me get this straight - *I* have to prove that your model is like his? It isn't. You went fishing for support, linked to something you didn't understand and got caught with your pants down, bullshitter Gary.

This discussion requires you or someone else to show where Professor Zhang even attempts to explain the similarities between all known levels of intelligence and behavior of matter. Without that you are just saying they don't agree, without ever producing evidence to know either way. You pretend that their references for their claims disagrees with what the theory states even when there is no conflict at all, in fact that is why I found their site such a resource.

Date: 2012/11/21 23:04:03, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

Date: 2012/11/21 23:20:50, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:12)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:04)
I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

Responding to invented things no one has said is generally unproductive.

Why not respond to the things that actually have been said? It would make a nice change of pace for you.

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is coherent?

Date: 2012/11/21 23:24:36, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:20)
Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is coherent?

Excuse Typo, can't edit, but here is how it should read:

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is incoherent?

Date: 2012/11/21 23:32:17, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 21 2012,23:25)
Gary, you're an idiot. If you believe there is a link beyond the use of a highly equivocal phrase in Prof. Zhang's work and yours, make a case. Prof. Zhang my also be invited to this discourse. So far all you've done is make things up and erect strawmen.

I was hoping you would invite them.

Theory is here:

http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/....pot.com

Computer model here:

http://intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/....pot.com

Date: 2012/11/21 23:34:02, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 21 2012,23:25)
Gary, you're an idiot. If you believe there is a link beyond the use of a highly equivocal phrase in Prof. Zhang's work and yours, make a case. Prof. Zhang my also be invited to this discourse. So far all you've done is make things up and erect strawmen.

I was hoping you would invite them.

Theory is here:

http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

Computer model here:

http://intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

Date: 2012/11/21 23:43:17, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:26)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:20)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:12)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:04)
I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

Responding to invented things no one has said is generally unproductive.

Why not respond to the things that actually have been said? It would make a nice change of pace for you.

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is coherent?

There's plenty of other things that you need to know, but I can heartily assent to the notion that nothing I've said supports the idea that your work is coherent.

Only thing you did is help bully my statement about molecular intelligence being a scientific concept, which it is.

You have no evidence against the theory. If you did then you have presented some by now.

Date: 2012/11/22 00:16:00, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:46)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:43)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:26)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:20)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:12)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:04)
I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

Responding to invented things no one has said is generally unproductive.

Why not respond to the things that actually have been said? It would make a nice change of pace for you.

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is coherent?

There's plenty of other things that you need to know, but I can heartily assent to the notion that nothing I've said supports the idea that your work is coherent.

Only thing you did is help bully my statement about molecular intelligence being a scientific concept, which it is.

You have no evidence against the theory. If you did then you have presented some by now.

If your conjecture is unfalsifiable, the consequence would be that no contrary evidence exists. Asking people to refute something with no possible contrary evidence would be a pretty brazen example of chutzpah.

Now we're back to Popper philosophy and your religion based conclusions to try getting out of having to address the model which references to:

David L. Heiserman
http://www.beam-wiki.org/wiki.......avid_L.

Arnold Trehub, especially Chapter 9, Page 158, Fig 9.3
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....ub....b
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....er9.pdf

You have no better model to show, nothing at all to help pioneer developing fields. Instead stomp on them so they are not taken seriously like they should have been right along.

Date: 2012/11/22 00:47:55, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 22 2012,00:22)
Oh noes! Bullshitter Gary's argument is a negative "I don't think evolution can do stuff!" one. And even worse, those key-holding, gate-keeping, loyalty-requiring religious zealots at antievolution.org are stopping him from doing science and stomping on his ideas and not taking him seriously!

That is a good example of the turf-war in US science and education where sciences pertaining to intelligence are spit-on, so that it can be made to appear that Darwinian theory already explained how intelligence works too. It's no wonder the academic neglect led to "intelligence" becoming such a controversy.

Date: 2012/11/22 00:57:13, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 22 2012,00:30)
Quote (GaryGaulin]Popper philosophy and your religion based conclusions to try getting out of having to address the model which references to:

David L. Heiserman
[URL=http://www.beam-wiki.org/wiki/Heiserman @ _David_L.)
http://www.beam-wiki.org/wiki.......avid_L.[/URL]

Arnold Trehub, especially Chapter 9, Page 158, Fig 9.3
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....ub....b
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....er9.pdf

You have no better model to show, nothing at all to help pioneer developing fields. Instead stomp on them so they are not taken seriously like they should have been right along.

Gary, can you not see how disclaiming falsifiability and also calling for critics to attempt to falsify your work is inconsistent, if not contradictory?

Then YOU explain how intelligence works using a high school level model that applies to all known intelligence levels (molecular, cellular, multicellular)!  Show circuit and algorithm, along with evidence that your model came from established cognitive science experts.

Date: 2012/11/22 11:07:21, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
If you cannot better explain the very basics of molecular and cellular intelligence, then you are unqualified to speak for these areas of science where some knowledge of David Heiserman (and others) is required..

Date: 2012/11/22 21:23:52, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
The reality is that I have been explaining the most useful scientific models known to cognitive science, while those on a mission to make sure “evolutionary theory” remains the bedrock of biology have to protest.

At least in intelligence related sciences, another variation of the same old (by now) Avida does not even come close to the work found in the Molecular Intelligence Course from Seoul National University. All together the different topics cover what is needed for the self-learning system that meets all the four requirements for molecular intelligence (as operationally defined by its circuit/algorithm). For it to self-learn there must be like David Heiserman showed, environmental sensors addressing a RAM storing motor actions where hedonic system confidence levels control resulting behavior. Kegg database shows the same sensory into RAM system. There is more or less a “trick to it” that the theory exists to explain. Once self-learning begins, there is a very powerful and controlling force born. It is then no surprise that molecular intelligence was able to keep on going through time, achieved current biodiversity.  Without that robustness in the system, I doubt it could be such a survivor.

It's best to accept that theories are simply best explanations of how a process works. In this case needing to include behavioral and intelligent causation events in its complete multi-level model made the Theory of Intelligent Design scientifically possible. And if that sounds too weird to be true, then you must see:

The Wacky History of Cell Theory - Lauren Royal-Woods

Anywho, science works in mysterious way. There is supposed to be a weird story behind a theory somewhere. So here we are in another crazy moment in time, of science history, the future can look back and laugh at too.

Date: 2012/11/22 22:11:00, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 22 2012,16:00)
Let's see if I'm following this. Professor Zhang made use of some properties of atoms and molecules to construct circuit components (logic gates?) for a computer processor, a good bit smaller than the ones currently in common use.

If that makes those atoms and molecules intelligent, then the use of diodes (is that the right word?) on circuit boards would make diodes intelligent, and the use of transistors in earlier computers would make the transistors intelligent, too. Not to mention the beads on an abacus, or the marks on a slide rule.

One diode, or one transistor, by itself? I see no benefit to applying the word "intelligence" to single components that way. Or even to a single neuron by itself, either.

Another thought here: the properties of atoms and molecules make them act in pretty much the same way in the same situation, or at least with fixed odds for each result if quantum stuff is involved. But one of the aspects of intelligence is that beings possessing it vary their behavior at times, sometimes unpredictably.

Granted, an evolving gene pool does share that one property with known intelligence, along with the property of keep a record of things that worked. Although, it doesn't keep a record of things that didn't work, and should therefore be avoided in the future, nor does it have an effective way of doing a massive rework of a feature that has become inefficient or risky. But that's the gene pool, not the individual organisms and especially not the individual genes or the DNA molecules.

Henry

I have been talking about information like this with coding ideas that work in the model:

Algorithmic Self-Assembly of DNA, Thesis by Erik Winfree

DNA computing is one application where the concept of "molecular intelligence" applies, not the only one.

Date: 2012/11/23 08:07:00, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 23 2012,02:38)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 23 2012,05:23)
The reality is that I have been explaining the most useful scientific models known to cognitive science........

No you haven't....cognitive dissonance ....maybe.

Your newest replies only add to the growing evidence for group Dunning–Kruger effect
being alive and well in this forum.

But for an idea of all else that is taught there see the list of undergraduate (also graduate is good) courses:

http://cse.snu.ac.kr/en....c....courses

Molecular Intelligence was a one year program, which is why some of the references and information is now a little dated. But it none the less was a help defining the concept of molecular intelligence, molecular systems which produce intelligence.

Molecular intelligence does not have to be biological, but it certainly has to be intelligent to qualify as intelligence. We are then back to what a system absolutely has to have for it to qualify as intelligent, which was best covered by the robotic work of David Heiserman (and still has not been beat).

http://robots.net/article....28.html

http://tnewton.solarbotics.net/robot1.....t1.html

Either better explain how intelligence and intelligent cause works, or further prove to be no friend of science.

Date: 2012/11/23 09:26:25, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 23 2012,08:25)
keep googling troll

I was refreshing my memory. Still did not run across the list of papers pertaining to molecular intelligence, but found this one:

Solving Traveling Salesman Problems Using Molecular Programming

Note: Solving a Traveling Salesman Problem is a "programming" challenge, not an indicator of "intelligence".

Date: 2012/11/23 18:44:23, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 23 2012,10:38)
     
Quote (damitall @ Nov. 23 2012,18:11)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 23 2012,09:26)
       
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 23 2012,08:25)
keep googling troll

I was refreshing my memory. Still did not run across the list of papers pertaining to molecular intelligence, but found this one:

Solving Traveling Salesman Problems Using Molecular Programming

Note: Solving a Traveling Salesman Problem is a "programming" challenge, not an indicator of "intelligence".

What, you mean like making virtual critters move towards targets on a monitor screen?

Target?

He's the classic fundy marksman.

Shoots at a barn wall then goes over and draws a bullseye on the hole.

That paper has nothing to do with 'molecular' intelligence or much to do with the TSP.

They are using a GA for small scale analysis of hydrogen bonds in DNA because the TSP looks a bit like the math involved in the bonds.

Something I'm pretty sure Gary doesn't understand.

Gary please explain how the TSP relates to hydrogen bonds.

I was speaking in reference to this argument that began on page 11 where the traveling salesman problem was presented as a good indicator of which model is a more accurate representation of reality (where living things each have their own intelligence):    

     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,02:22)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,02:05)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,01:39)
         
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,00:48)
Gary:

               
Quote

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.


To make that claim stick, you'd have to have done a broad survey of capabilities of evolutionary computation instances and made specific comparisons demonstrating the superiority of your approach. I doubt that this has happened. You could dispel that by showing your work. Let's start with your comparison of your program and that of Eureqa. Please show us how your program does symbolic regression better than Eureqa. And then PyEvolve. And DEAP. And PyGP. Your claim implies that you've already taken this step, so all I'm asking for is that you show us what you must already have in hand.

Others have already asked for a similar comparison concerning the TSP. I'd be interested in that, too. I asked Bill Dembski to make his criticism of GAs stick when considering the TSP back in 1997, and so far as I know, he has never even attempted a discussion in general that focuses on the TSP. Can you do better?


Can you first explain to me why (even where you could) better solving a Traveling Salesman Problem proves that a GA/EA is a better model of intelligence than a cognitive model that has long been used to explain how intelligence works?

Your comparison is identical to one that concludes a pocket calculator (or software) is far more intelligent than a human brain, because it is far superior for solving hard math problems.

Huh?

Look at your claim. In what sense does your model put "EA's (sic) and GA's (sic) to shame"? That's the relevant point. And I need not refer to comparisons to human brains to ask you to support your claim. Recall the question that you offered the quoted statement as an answer to: "Will you describe exactly how the so-called "theory" is "useful", especially "scientifically"?" The claim you put on the table was one of relative utility, not philosophy of cognition.

It appears that my suspicion that you haven't done the work that would ground your claim is spot-on.

I have been claiming that it is a better model of reality where living things (from molecular intelligence on up to human intelligence) have intelligence that make their own choices that over long periods of time can develop into new species.

You are now demanding an unfair comparison so that you can say that your pocket calculator is a superior model of intelligence, while also suggesting that it better explains how intelligent causation works.

And this:

     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,23:15)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,23:02)
Now we're back to the usual condemnations based on the opinions of forum-trolls and extremely biased individuals, instead of providing a better experimentable mechanism to explain how "intelligent cause" works.

And while Gary has time to spew falsehoods about what other people have said, he doesn't have time to do anything towards showing that his program is superior to evolutionary computation in any scientifically productive aspect, nor to show that he has any basis for the claim that his program might "solve" the TSP, thereby demonstrating that P=NP and providing the single greatest advance in computing since Turing thought about what he could do with an infinite paper tape. It's my opinion that Gary doesn't do any of the productive things that he might be doing along the lines of backing up his claims because he either knows he's spewing falsehoods or because he knows that's well outside his capabilities.

The paper is titled "Solving Traveling Salesman Problems Using Molecular Programming"

Date: 2012/11/24 10:48:32, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 24 2012,10:04)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 22 2012,11:07)
If you cannot better explain the very basics of molecular and cellular intelligence, then you are unqualified to speak for these areas of science where some knowledge of David Heiserman (and others) is required..

Again,

Why should we explain something that we don't think even exists.

"If you can't give me a better explanation for the invisible dragon in my garage, then why should I even listen to you?"

When YOU provide evidence that such things even exist, then we can evaluate the effectiveness of your notions in explaining them.  But I don't think that molecular and cellular intelligence exist, unless you change the word "intelligence" to mean "any action as a result of any change in the environment of the thing".  Which appears to be what you are doing.

Understanding this theory makes it much easier to understand the work of scientists who actually study molecular, cellular, algorithmic and electronic intelligence.

If all this is against your religion then you are best to continue to help trash science, for religious gain.

Date: 2012/11/24 11:02:43, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,08:53)

As usual, Gary gets it wrong. Back on page 11, I asked Gary to substantiate his claim. What claim, you might ask?

You were caught red-handed commenting on a theory you did not even look at and have since proven to have the scientific objectivity of a religious bigot (which do exist in Atheism and similar religions even though they deny being religious).

Why not explain why you threw this statement in my face?

     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 23 2012,18:44)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,23:15)
               
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,23:02)
Now we're back to the usual condemnations based on the opinions of forum-trolls and extremely biased individuals, instead of providing a better experimentable mechanism to explain how "intelligent cause" works.

And while Gary has time to spew falsehoods about what other people have said, he doesn't have time to do anything towards showing that his program is superior to evolutionary computation in any scientifically productive aspect, nor to show that he has any basis for the claim that his program might "solve" the TSP, thereby demonstrating that P=NP and providing the single greatest advance in computing since Turing thought about what he could do with an infinite paper tape. It's my opinion that Gary doesn't do any of the productive things that he might be doing along the lines of backing up his claims because he either knows he's spewing falsehoods or because he knows that's well outside his capabilities.

The paper is titled "Solving Traveling Salesman Problems Using Molecular Programming"

More on how to “solve” the TSP:

Multiple Traveling Salesman Problem (MTSP) Solving using Genetic Algorithms (GA) II

How to Solve Travelling Salesman Problems – TSP

And where is your evidence that the following university level scientific evidence and what I said here in reference to cellular intelligence are all false?

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y211684

Date: 2012/11/24 13:53:03, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,13:09)
You really don't know much about me, do you?

I honestly know a pompous blow-hard when I see one. Your deceptive methods of unfairly discrediting others is now a serious ethical concern for all whom you appointed yourself to (mis)represent.

Date: 2012/11/24 15:13:36, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 24 2012,14:52)
Let me stop you there, Gary.

Someone with an avatar showing a baseball cap that says “TARD” who has been helping to hurl bigoted insults is no help to Wesley right now.  But thanks for chiming in with your support for their tactics.

Date: 2012/11/24 15:21:31, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
I only want to see your better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause".

Date: 2012/11/24 15:33:39, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,15:21)

I only want to see your better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause".

That's all science cares about right now.

Date: 2012/11/24 16:06:48, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,15:48)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,15:33)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,15:21)

I only want to see your better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause".

That's all science cares about right now.

But that's not true, Gary.

Link

 
Quote

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.


You took time out from cheerleading your own work to diss work by others. It's obvious that you wanted to do that then. Is it just inconvenient to actually show your justification, or don't you actually have any? My bet is on the latter.

I am entitled to my opinion that GA's are toys in comparison to the realism of cognitive models where all the living things in it are intelligent at one or more levels, make their own choices, develop communication between each other, and (technology willing) would scream and cry where told their program is to be shut-off thus destroying their world, etc..

I am not backing down from my statement.

Date: 2012/11/24 16:30:27, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,16:15)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,16:06)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,15:48)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,15:33)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,15:21)

I only want to see your better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause".

That's all science cares about right now.

But that's not true, Gary.

Link

       
Quote

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.


You took time out from cheerleading your own work to diss work by others. It's obvious that you wanted to do that then. Is it just inconvenient to actually show your justification, or don't you actually have any? My bet is on the latter.

I am entitled to my opinion that GA's are toys in comparison to the realism of cognitive models where all the living things in it are intelligent at one or more levels, make their own choices, develop communication between each other, and (technology willing) would scream and cry where told their program is to be shut-off thus destroying their world, etc..

I am not backing down from my statement.

I'm entitled to my opinion that your opinion is a category error. Evolutionary computation is not a broad, all-encompassing explanation of cognition.

I'm entitled to my opinion that in-so-far as your code and evolutionary computation might be compared side by side on some task, you have done nothing whatsoever to actually do that work so as to make your opinion an informed one.

I'm entitled to my opinion that your opinion is, in the two different approaches outlined above, worthless.

I already know that your models are not a broad, all-encompassing explanation of cognition. That's why I have to consider them toys in comparison to models that are.

But getting back to science and scientific theory. Where is YOUR better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause"?  You now need one, or else my Theory of Intelligent Design easily beats your not having any at all.

Date: 2012/11/24 16:40:44, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,16:34)
I'm perfectly good with pointing out that the FBI's "Carnivore", SAP, the Apollo V rocket, the US Space Shuttle, and the Large Hadron Collider are just as much "baby-toys" as evolutionary computation is in Gary's framework of "my VB code that I say explains everything to do with cognition" versus everything else, where everything that doesn't aim to explain all cognition is a "baby-toy".

Clever excuses to get out of having to play by the same rules as everyone else, do not work anymore.

Again. Where is YOUR better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause"?  You now need one, or else my Theory of Intelligent Design easily beats your not having any at all.

Date: 2012/11/24 17:04:32, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,16:55)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,16:40)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,16:34)
I'm perfectly good with pointing out that the FBI's "Carnivore", SAP, the Apollo V rocket, the US Space Shuttle, and the Large Hadron Collider are just as much "baby-toys" as evolutionary computation is in Gary's framework of "my VB code that I say explains everything to do with cognition" versus everything else, where everything that doesn't aim to explain all cognition is a "baby-toy".

Clever excuses to get out of having to play by the same rules as everyone else, do not work anymore.

Again. Where is YOUR better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause"?  You now need one, or else my Theory of Intelligent Design easily beats your not having any at all.

You've made a conjecture. You have code to go with it.

That doesn't make the conjecture a theory, or require everyone -- or anyone -- to stipulate assent to your conjecture. As I noted before, your stated conclusion at the end of your conjecture doesn't say anything in the first sentence that is in any way troublesome for science.

Link

Translation: The Theory of Intelligent Design is not a Theory because I said-so!

Date: 2012/11/24 17:20:27, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 24 2012,17:09)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,17:04)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,16:55)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,16:40)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,16:34)
I'm perfectly good with pointing out that the FBI's "Carnivore", SAP, the Apollo V rocket, the US Space Shuttle, and the Large Hadron Collider are just as much "baby-toys" as evolutionary computation is in Gary's framework of "my VB code that I say explains everything to do with cognition" versus everything else, where everything that doesn't aim to explain all cognition is a "baby-toy".

Clever excuses to get out of having to play by the same rules as everyone else, do not work anymore.

Again. Where is YOUR better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause"?  You now need one, or else my Theory of Intelligent Design easily beats your not having any at all.

You've made a conjecture. You have code to go with it.

That doesn't make the conjecture a theory, or require everyone -- or anyone -- to stipulate assent to your conjecture. As I noted before, your stated conclusion at the end of your conjecture doesn't say anything in the first sentence that is in any way troublesome for science.

Link

Translation: The Theory of Intelligent Design is not a Theory because I said-so!

Really? So what about the theory of gary is a bullshitter. It must be legit because i've used theory and even made it bold!

How many times must I post this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._theory

IDIOT.

Translation: The Theory of Intelligent Design is not a Theory because I said-so and I even misrepresented a Wiki link that will then say-so too!

Date: 2012/11/24 17:38:36, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Important history lesson here:

Suppressed research in the Soviet Union

Date: 2012/11/24 17:57:40, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,17:42)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,17:38)
Important history lesson here:

Suppressed research in the Soviet Union

Yeah... it is important to know your history.

Quote
HOW INTELLIGENT DESIGN ADVOCATES TURN THE SORDID LESSONS FROM SOVIET AND NAZI HISTORY UPSIDE DOWN
By Wesley R. Elsberry and Mark Perakh


Amazing!  They even wrote a paper for countering what is stated in a Wikipedia article!!

Date: 2012/11/24 18:05:20, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Oh and by the way I had this on file:

Quote
Predictions

The following are some of the major predictions of this theory. At the research level there should be many thousands of minor predictions possible (i.e. the news headline "Theory Of Intelligent Design predicts role of gene in cellular sensory and epigenetic memory addressing circuitry.") but in these cases the researchers would be the ones who would have to explain what the theory predicted, as it pertains to their discovery. All are testable although the ones that concern subatomic behavior would be difficult to verify, for the same reason String Theory is currently considered untestable. The lack of DNA in long extinct organisms also presents a problem but that is one reason why the theory is very useful. Live testing of the Chromosomal Adam and Eve prediction presents a serious ethical problem but future advances in phylogenetics and genome modeling should make that unnecessary.

The Theory Of Intelligent Design predicts:

The origin of intelligent life is then the result of a progression of an "autonomous self-learning associative memory confidence driven intelligence system" that in turn produces fractal-similar emergence at the next intelligent level on up to us then to collective intelligence and possibly collective consciousness.

Molecular intelligence (self-replicating RNA, DNA genome, centrosome) is emergent from nonrandom subatomic forces (predictable atom interactions).

Cellular intelligence is emergent from Molecular intelligence.

Multicellular intelligence is emergent from Cellular intelligence.

Collective intelligence is emergent from Multicellular intelligence.

When all neural circuits are fully understood the human brain will be found to work the same way as the other intelligence systems that are explained.

Computer models can predict what was happening at the genome level in long extinct organisms.

Cambrian Explosion.

Two (or more) smaller "Explosions" prior to Cambrian Explosion that may be somewhat evidenced by phylogenetics which research is unable to verify.

Proliferation of biodiversity should not be a linear slope and this is not due to filling of environmental niches, it is the result of genome learning curve.

Four part mechanism produces intelligence.

Intelligence can be detected and measured in any somehow observable system by it meeting all four requirements for any intelligence system.

As a result of fully autonomous behavior what is called "free-will" is inherent to the intelligence mechanism, not something added to it.

The fossil record will show that never once was there not a predecessor of like design present for the descendant design to have come from.

Gaps in the fossil record will be found where no transitional forms ever existed. In humans the pelvis and bipedalism are examples of morphological features that suddenly appeared in the fossil record. Predecessor of like design was a different species.

Chromosomal Adam and Eve.

Human need for knowledge is inherent to same four part intelligence mechanism found at other levels.

Humans can "feel" the "confidence" changing success/failure mechanism inherent to the intelligence mechanism, which in turn explains some of the strong drives evident in art/culture.

Future behavioral speciation morphology can with some certainty be determined by what it finds desirable in a mate.

What triggers sexual arousal is not "hard wired" in neurons as an image, it has a molecular origin with feedback circuitry that is more or less able to sense what the eyes and brain are seeing.

Detectable and measurable intelligence (at least) includes Electronic, Unimolecular, Molecular, Cellular, Multicellular.

Some detail of centrosome mechanism (centrosomal intelligence) ahead of any other scientific evidence that can explain how it works.


I will now await the trashing that will be required for them to make it appear that the theory makes no predictions.

Date: 2012/11/24 18:22:42, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Richardthughes is unable to figure out how to test predictions (that a high school aged scientist mind would have little problem with) therefore it is not a theory!

Date: 2012/11/24 18:32:06, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 24 2012,18:21)
These aren't predictions, Gary. You have to make them specific. What you have is vague bullshit.

Take this one, for instance: Proliferation of biodiversity should not be a linear slope. Spell it out. What should be plotted as a function of what? How do you measure these quantities?

That was also well enough covered in the theory:

 
Quote
Cambrian Explosion

Fossil and phylogenetic evidence shows that soon after the planet formed a solid crust 3.4 billion years ago living things were already at the prokaryotic (primitive bacteria, algae) stage.  Then there was a sudden proliferation of more complex eukaryotic cells (has nucleus and specialized organelles).  Then later there was the Cambrian Explosion where multicellular biodiversity rapidly proliferated where at the dawn of multicellular organisms some 530 million years ago or more, trilobites (now extinct arthropods) had the compound eyes of modern insects.  Like other features of living things these relatively complex eyes rather suddenly appeared and are still here in much the same form as in the beginning.  Because of this evidence we must account for a mechanism that can produce these exponential diversification rates.  In molecular and cellular intelligence systems (the two combined producing multicellular intelligence) this translates to a high “learning rate”.

To account for this rapid of a biodiversity increase we will first graph the information increase (learning curve) of (per David Heiserman “Beta class”) intelligence then look for curve shape that correlates with fossil and phylogenetic evidence.  The simple Intelligence Generator/Detector model will be kept busy going from feeder to feeder while we as usual monitor memory (information) increase with time. Its relatively static yet challenging environment would represent typical information increase in a series of new niches becoming available after a new food source establishes itself in new territories.

A blue line shows number of highest confidence 3 memories. This is a measure of the most successful responses to environment. The middle two lines show number of lesser confidence 1 and 2 memories, a measure of relative uncertainty. The black line shows total memory, a measure of relative genome size.

 

We can here see that there is in fact a very rapid information increase. The number of confidence 3 memories in comparison to total can suggest a relatively large genome size for the amount of useful information that is stored in it.

We can now predict three major events are easily possible. The first event when molecular intelligence first emerged (Origin of Life).  Then a second event when cellular intelligence first emerged. Then there was a third event, the Cambrian Explosion, when multicellular intelligence first emerged.


http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/....pot.com

Date: 2012/11/24 19:02:06, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 24 2012,18:53)
Gary, I'm trying to strip away the babble, misapplied terms and meaningless graphs to find out what you're trying to say here.  Is it that multicellular life first appeared in the Cambrian?

Cambrian Explosion

Date: 2012/11/24 19:20:22, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 24 2012,19:04)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,17:02)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 24 2012,18:53)
Gary, I'm trying to strip away the babble, misapplied terms and meaningless graphs to find out what you're trying to say here.  Is it that multicellular life first appeared in the Cambrian?

Cambrian Explosion

Answer the fucking question.  What are you claiming?

Does the following say "multicellular life first appeared in the Cambrian" or does it say "when multicellular intelligence first emerged"?
 
Quote
Then there was a third event, the Cambrian Explosion, when multicellular intelligence first emerged.

I am being very specific. If all you see is babble, misapplied terms and meaningless graphs, then don't blame me for your inability to figure it out.

Date: 2012/11/24 19:36:15, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,19:23)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,19:20)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 24 2012,19:04)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,17:02)
     
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 24 2012,18:53)
Gary, I'm trying to strip away the babble, misapplied terms and meaningless graphs to find out what you're trying to say here.  Is it that multicellular life first appeared in the Cambrian?

Cambrian Explosion

Answer the fucking question.  What are you claiming?

Does the following say "multicellular life first appeared in the Cambrian" or does it say "when multicellular intelligence first emerged"?
   
Quote
Then there was a third event, the Cambrian Explosion, when multicellular intelligence first emerged.

I am being very specific. If all you see is babble, misapplied terms and meaningless graphs, then don't blame me for your inability to figure it out.

How do you exclude the fauna of the Ediacaran from displaying multicellular intelligence?

The theory only discusses the "Cambrian Explosion" not exact date that the first multicellular intelligence appeared which is expected to have been shortly before that time period.

Date: 2012/11/24 20:00:10, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 24 2012,19:43)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,19:36)
The theory only discusses the "Cambrian Explosion" not exact date that the first multicellular intelligence appeared which is expected to have been shortly before that time period.

Why? How is the 'theory' anchored to only one time period / event?

The exact time period of the Cambrian Explosion is irrelevant to this theory. The only thing that matters is the sudden proliferation of multicellular intelligence, found in the fossil record.

Date: 2012/11/24 20:18:56, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 24 2012,20:10)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,18:00)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 24 2012,19:43)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,19:36)
The theory only discusses the "Cambrian Explosion" not exact date that the first multicellular intelligence appeared which is expected to have been shortly before that time period.

Why? How is the 'theory' anchored to only one time period / event?

The exact time period of the Cambrian Explosion is irrelevant to this theory. The only thing that matters is the sudden proliferation of multicellular intelligence, found in the fossil record.

So how do you distinguish "multicellular life with multicellular intelligence" from "multicellular life without multicellular intelligence"?

From theory:

Quote
Multicellular Intelligence

Multicellular intelligence produced by a brain operates with clock cycles that can be detected from the outside by tuning to waves with an electroencephalograph (EEG) machine to observe brain waves. In humans intelligence can be gauged using academic test scores and personal accomplishments, while in less academic organisms mazes or other cognitive tests are used.

Multicellular organisms are not always multicellular intelligence. Without a brain, plants cannot meet the four requirements for multicellular intelligence. In plants and other simple systems cellular intelligence combines to produce a multicellular structure where the only plant motion is to sway with the wind or slow phototropic behavior, growing towards light.  Venus flytrap has a simple reflex action to close when an insect touches its sensor, but a “reflex” action is not “intelligence”. There is also cellular sprout timing (vernalization) circuitry but that is a molecular system inside its cells not cells communicating with each other as in a brain, therefore we will consider plants to be cellular intelligence only, not multicellular intelligence.

Animals easily meet all four requirements of intelligence. This includes corals, sponges and sea squirts where in the larval (tadpole) stage also have a light sensing ocellus (motion sensing navigation eye) to help them find a comfortable place to stay.

Date: 2012/11/24 20:33:01, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 24 2012,20:24)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,18:18)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 24 2012,20:10)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,18:00)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 24 2012,19:43)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,19:36)
The theory only discusses the "Cambrian Explosion" not exact date that the first multicellular intelligence appeared which is expected to have been shortly before that time period.

Why? How is the 'theory' anchored to only one time period / event?

The exact time period of the Cambrian Explosion is irrelevant to this theory. The only thing that matters is the sudden proliferation of multicellular intelligence, found in the fossil record.

So how do you distinguish "multicellular life with multicellular intelligence" from "multicellular life without multicellular intelligence"?

From theory:

 
Quote
Multicellular Intelligence

Multicellular intelligence produced by a brain operates with clock cycles that can be detected from the outside by tuning to waves with an electroencephalograph (EEG) machine to observe brain waves. In humans intelligence can be gauged using academic test scores and personal accomplishments, while in less academic organisms mazes or other cognitive tests are used.

Multicellular organisms are not always multicellular intelligence. Without a brain, plants cannot meet the four requirements for multicellular intelligence. In plants and other simple systems cellular intelligence combines to produce a multicellular structure where the only plant motion is to sway with the wind or slow phototropic behavior, growing towards light.  Venus flytrap has a simple reflex action to close when an insect touches its sensor, but a “reflex” action is not “intelligence”. There is also cellular sprout timing (vernalization) circuitry but that is a molecular system inside its cells not cells communicating with each other as in a brain, therefore we will consider plants to be cellular intelligence only, not multicellular intelligence.

Animals easily meet all four requirements of intelligence. This includes corals, sponges and sea squirts where in the larval (tadpole) stage also have a light sensing ocellus (motion sensing navigation eye) to help them find a comfortable place to stay.

Animals existed for many millions of years before the Cambrian.  So your "molecular intelligence" notions have no relevance to the Cambrian Explosion.

Is this better?

From updated version of theory not yet online:

Quote
Most animals easily meet all four requirements of intelligence. This includes corals, sponges and sea squirts where in the larval (tadpole) stage also have a light sensing ocellus (motion sensing navigation eye) to help them find a comfortable place to stay.

Date: 2012/11/24 21:02:19, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
I just added more detail to the paragraph in question:

Quote
Most animals easily meet all four requirements for intelligence at the multicellular level. This includes corals, sponges and sea squirts where in the larval (tadpole) stage also have a light sensing ocellus (motion sensing navigation eye) to help them find a comfortable place to stay.

Date: 2012/11/24 21:43:24, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 24 2012,21:14)
That list of "predictions" looks to me like a summary of stuff that was already known, just with the word "intelligence" inserted in places where as far as I can tell it adds nothing to the understanding of the subject matter. So even if all of that is a logical consequence of a clearly stated model, if it doesn't predict stuff not already known, and doesn't disagree with current knowledge anyway, then it doesn't add anything to scientific knowledge.

As for that phrase "intelligent causation", as far as I can tell on that, it involves claiming intelligence for things that in some way resemble components of later things that have intelligence. But if intelligence is a result of interaction of large numbers of parts (neurons in living things, logic gates in computers), then there's nothing to gain by asserting partial intellgence of the components or things that resemble them.

Henry

Then show me where "evolutionary theory" seamlessly explains the origin of life especially intelligence, its features and circuit/algorithm, three major "explosion" events, Chromosomal Adam and Eve, "free-will" is inherent to the intelligence mechanism not something added to it, human need for knowledge is inherent to same four part intelligence mechanism, and all the rest that is covered by this theory.

Date: 2012/11/24 22:41:51, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 24 2012,22:30)
And don't say "intelligent causation" unless you also explains how that adds anything to what is known without merely inserting that phrase into summaries of current knowledge.

And yes I would most certainly need your better explanation for the phenomenon of "intelligent cause". But since you are unable to even begin developing theory like this, you are best off just pretending that science allows you to deny such requests.

Date: 2012/11/24 22:59:32, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 24 2012,22:17)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 25 2012,05:43)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 24 2012,21:14)
That list of "predictions" looks to me like a summary of stuff that was already known, just with the word "intelligence" inserted in places where as far as I can tell it adds nothing to the understanding of the subject matter. So even if all of that is a logical consequence of a clearly stated model, if it doesn't predict stuff not already known, and doesn't disagree with current knowledge anyway, then it doesn't add anything to scientific knowledge.

As for that phrase "intelligent causation", as far as I can tell on that, it involves claiming intelligence for things that in some way resemble components of later things that have intelligence. But if intelligence is a result of interaction of large numbers of parts (neurons in living things, logic gates in computers), then there's nothing to gain by asserting partial intellgence of the components or things that resemble them.

Henry

Then show me where "evolutionary theory" seamlessly explains the origin of life especially intelligence, its features and circuit/algorithm, three major "explosion" events, Chromosomal Adam and Eve, "free-will" is inherent to the intelligence mechanism not something added to it, human need for knowledge is inherent to same four part intelligence mechanism, and all the rest that is covered by this theory.

Fundy horseshit gary.

Using the Theory of Evolution scientists can make predictions which when tested, guess what?
Don't support your crap.

This theory predicts all that yours can and much much more, especially in regard to the role of intelligence in the origin of life and species.

In science, that is a very major breakthrough. But in religious politics, that is something some must immediately suppress.

Date: 2012/11/24 23:05:41, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,22:55)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,22:41)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 24 2012,22:30)
And don't say "intelligent causation" unless you also explains how that adds anything to what is known without merely inserting that phrase into summaries of current knowledge.

And yes I would most certainly need your better explanation for the phenomenon of "intelligent cause". But since you are unable to even begin developing theory like this, you are best off just pretending that science allows you to deny such requests.

Given that you define things idiosyncratically, what, precisely, is your connotation for "the phenomenon of intelligent cause"?

From Theory:
 
Quote
Introduction – Intelligence, Intelligent Cause

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, a nonrandom force guided self-assembly process whereby an intelligent entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in levels of increasingly complex organization producing self-similar entities systematically in their own image, likeness. As in a fractal, multiple designs are produced by an algorithm producing emergent fractal-similar designs at the next size scale (atom -> molecule -> cell -> multicellular).

Date: 2012/11/24 23:39:23, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,23:11)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,17:57)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,17:42)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,17:38)
Important history lesson here:

Suppressed research in the Soviet Union

Yeah... it is important to know your history.

   
Quote
HOW INTELLIGENT DESIGN ADVOCATES TURN THE SORDID LESSONS FROM SOVIET AND NAZI HISTORY UPSIDE DOWN
By Wesley R. Elsberry and Mark Perakh


Amazing!  They even wrote a paper for countering what is stated in a Wikipedia article!!

My co-author, Mark Perakh, was a citizen of the USSR, fought Nazis in WWII, and spent time in a Soviet gulag for civil disobedience.

I think he has some insight into the Soviet and Nazi systems, and what suppression was about.

I don't see any variance between our account and Wikipedia. So let's see your documentation of what, precisely, in our article "counters" something in the Wikipedia article. If none is forthcoming, I wouldn't be at all surprised.

It is not uncommon for otherwise good people to get caught up in suppression of science. In fact, that's why I provided the link. It's something US history teachers should truthfully cover, as well as the other side of the WW2 conflict in Germany that did the same thing but with slogans like "Gott mit uns" (meaning God with us). Both sides trashed science for their ideology. Same is happening now, in this forum. The most vocal here use Stalinist tactics against the Discovery Institute's tactics that introduced a (once) religious theory very much like what was taught in German schools where God created life in present form and other races were messed up by evolution thus they felt obliged to exterminate all others (I also read the Nazi science teachers guide they had to follow).

Only thing that will save us from the WW3 you are all working hard towards, is real-science.

Date: 2012/11/24 23:47:06, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,23:19)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,23:05)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,22:55)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,22:41)
       
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 24 2012,22:30)
And don't say "intelligent causation" unless you also explains how that adds anything to what is known without merely inserting that phrase into summaries of current knowledge.

And yes I would most certainly need your better explanation for the phenomenon of "intelligent cause". But since you are unable to even begin developing theory like this, you are best off just pretending that science allows you to deny such requests.

Given that you define things idiosyncratically, what, precisely, is your connotation for "the phenomenon of intelligent cause"?

From Theory:
     
Quote
Introduction – Intelligence, Intelligent Cause

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, a nonrandom force guided self-assembly process whereby an intelligent entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in levels of increasingly complex organization producing self-similar entities systematically in their own image, likeness. As in a fractal, multiple designs are produced by an algorithm producing emergent fractal-similar designs at the next size scale (atom -> molecule -> cell -> multicellular).

You are confused once again. That's an ontological assertion, not a phenomenological definition.

There is much more than that on intelligent cause, including the previously shown illustrations. I used the first paragraph of the Introduction because of it summing things up in as few words as possible.

Date: 2012/11/25 00:02:58, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 24 2012,23:42)
That's right, "Same is happening now, in this forum. The most vocal here use Stalinist tactics" - this open forum, where you can post without moderation as compatred to "the Discovery Institute's " which always has comments closed. Again, you find yourself at odds with reality.

I found that the modern day conflict primarily uses the recently invented philosophical Poppersim that works great to suppress politically inconvenient theory. First comes the false claim that finding rabbits in the Cambrian would falsify their theory, then they pompously refuse to accept anything given as falsification of this theory. After I discovered the hypocrisy of the game, I stopped playing it.

Date: 2012/11/25 00:14:40, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 24 2012,23:50)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 24 2012,22:21)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,23:19)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,23:05)
 
From Theory:
       
Quote
Introduction – Intelligence, Intelligent Cause

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, a nonrandom force guided self-assembly process whereby an intelligent entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in levels of increasingly complex organization producing self-similar entities systematically in their own image, likeness. As in a fractal, multiple designs are produced by an algorithm producing emergent fractal-similar designs at the next size scale (atom -> molecule -> cell -> multicellular).

You are confused once again. That's an ontological assertion, not a phenomenological definition.

Can we get it opperationalized, please?

Request denied!!!!111!!!eleven!!!!!

If you want to reword it then go ahead. If it is better than what is there now then I'll use that instead. But considering all else that there is for detail, it will likely become redundant.

Date: 2012/11/25 00:19:43, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 24 2012,23:17)
Ah look - Gary's make changes as he's being corrected. Looks like a well thought out 'theory' to me..

Welcome to the scientific concept known as "informal peer review".

Date: 2012/11/25 09:28:56, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 25 2012,00:37)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 25 2012,00:02)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 24 2012,23:42)
That's right, "Same is happening now, in this forum. The most vocal here use Stalinist tactics" - this open forum, where you can post without moderation as compatred to "the Discovery Institute's " which always has comments closed. Again, you find yourself at odds with reality.

I found that the modern day conflict primarily uses the recently invented philosophical Poppersim that works great to suppress politically inconvenient theory. First comes the false claim that finding rabbits in the Cambrian would falsify their theory, then they pompously refuse to accept anything given as falsification of this theory. After I discovered the hypocrisy of the game, I stopped playing it.

1934 is recent?

Bonnie and Clyde died that year. The Sikorsky S-42 flying boat had its maiden flight. The Queen Mary liner was launched. And the trampoline was invented.

You seem to have a weak grasp of the passage of time. Along with philosophy, science, and English.

I am talking about the year 2012:

MARXISM-POPPERISM AND BIOLOGY

There are a number of scholarly articles to be found online for Karl Popper and Popperism. I chose this link from Russia because of the way it quickly points out similarities with what Russia already learned a tragic lesson about.

Date: 2012/11/25 09:58:48, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
I am aware that Karl Popper based his work on others in philosophy. But that that does not make it science.

The myth is that Popperism (falsification) is the foundation upon which the scientific method is based upon, when in fact the scientific method dates back to around the time of Prophet Muhammad or earlier.

Date: 2012/11/25 10:06:00, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 25 2012,00:29)
Uh, no.

You are a pusillanimous swine.

You can't point out any "countering". You join the DI Fellows in their scurrilous misuse of Soviet and Nazi allusions. You are beyond contemptible.

Nice example of how those who go against your philosophy are immediately punished. The tactic even has science journals getting in-line and (without questioning its actual scientific usefulness) obeying all command.

Date: 2012/11/25 11:07:50, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 25 2012,10:11)
Marxism-Popperism? That's number 33 in the Crackpot index:

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

Gary is a heavy-hitter, scoring 30s, 40s, and 50s on the crackpot scale.

That's another good example of how ones who question the prevailing philosophy of science are punished for questioning it.

Date: 2012/11/25 18:49:55, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ Nov. 25 2012,11:40)
Gary, I do a lot of hydraulic modeling with a commercially available program (just to say - I am not a scientist).

When I do an analysis I always begin with comparing the model to existing reality.  I may need to adjust my model parameters, like perhaps ground temp, to make sure my model better matches actual flow conditions.

This is with a simple hydraulic model. Your model, from what I can gather, attempts to model much more than linear single phase flow.  Have you done any comparing to reality?  If so, please show that.  If not, why not and why would you think your model has value?

Over the past 40 years (since I was a teenager) I have been studying the cognitive models that became popular, and what was known about how brains of many kinds work. After the advent of the personal computer I took a home study course in AI and later programmed neural networks. The internet later came along which made it possible to study even more, which is here important because of it being vital that the model accurately sums up the main features of any cognitive system. The model that ended up surviving the test of time (since 1980) is that of David Heiserman, which I found in a book on building your own self-learning robot.

For an idea of what I have more recently been studying there is a list of some of my favorites here:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y212275

As you can see from this reply it is a matter of comparing biologically relevant models for insects to humans:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y212615

I spent many thousands of hours comparing this model to existing reality. In more recent years I discovered that genomes and higher order cellular processes such as chemotaxis work the same way.  And even more recently I needing to explain emergent intelligence from intelligence which resulted in my being pelted with insults because of the ID controversy having given that the name of “intelligent cause”. A couple of years after that I realized that I had everything needed to clinch the Theory of Intelligent Design and at the same time have the logical name I needed which is in fact the phrase “intelligent cause” . I knew I was in for years of even more severe bashing for it. But at least that way the biological sciences can progress like they should, and in time the controversy can end with all having learned something valuable from the experience.

If I did not compare models and study what is known about how brains and such work then there would be no way I could make it this far. That’s what it’s all about, comparing to reality. And none in any forum ever presenting a better model summing up how any intelligence of any kind works is more evidence that I have the best model in all of science for that and for the phenomenon of “intelligent cause”.

Date: 2012/11/25 21:47:57, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 25 2012,21:25)
Quote
In more recent years I discovered that genomes and higher order cellular processes such as chemotaxis work the same way.

I wonder if you meant to say gene pool rather than genome. After all, a gene pool does keep a record of sorts of things that worked (while not keeping a record of things to avoid doing again), and it has a way of trying lots of minor variations (although no way of reliably trying large variations to rewrite something that was done badly).

Henry

The gene pool still relies on single individuals to come up with unique solutions to problems such as digesting nylon, antibiotic resistance, differentiation into new cell morphologies.

At the "molecular intelligence" level the gene pool is a "collective intelligence" or more specifically "molecular collective intelligence".

Date: 2012/11/25 22:53:30, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2012,22:09)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 25 2012,21:47)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 25 2012,21:25)
 
Quote
In more recent years I discovered that genomes and higher order cellular processes such as chemotaxis work the same way.

I wonder if you meant to say gene pool rather than genome. After all, a gene pool does keep a record of sorts of things that worked (while not keeping a record of things to avoid doing again), and it has a way of trying lots of minor variations (although no way of reliably trying large variations to rewrite something that was done badly).

Henry

The gene pool still relies on single individuals to come up with unique solutions to problems such as digesting nylon, antibiotic resistance, differentiation into new cell morphologies.

At the "molecular intelligence" level the gene pool is a "collective intelligence" or more specifically "molecular collective intelligence".

The way you stated this implies that you think that the individual decides to become resistant to antibiotics or become able to consume nylon residue.

Is this the case?

Do you think that an individual bacterium decides to become resistant to an antibiotic?

Follow up: Does that bacteria then teach other bacteria to be resistant?

Bacteria "learn" how to do such things.

After one learns something new this can be taught to others via conjugation. But since there is not all that much known about how the entire process works I'm not yet sure how often new genes are shared with others, I only know that at least sometimes they are.


And on a side note to Henry I have to thank them for a question that led to an answer I had to add to the Molecular Intelligence section of the theory:
Quote
The molecular intelligence “gene pool” relies on single individuals to come up with unique solutions to problems such as digesting nylon, antibiotic resistance and differentiation into new cell morphologies. At the "molecular intelligence" level the gene pool is a "collective intelligence" or more specifically "molecular collective intelligence".

The page numbers in the index are probably off but I uploaded the latest, which also has more detail for the forward and reverse Krebs Cycle.

Date: 2012/11/25 23:19:44, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 25 2012,22:43)
Don't you have a day job?

Yes, but due to my science work normally coming first (after that) I don't have much of a social life!  When I was younger I would program all weekend, sometimes two days straight after getting out of work on Friday then fall asleep Sunday night, then arrive Monday morning all worn out.

Due to economy having been going down the crapper for years I'm now part time, have no car and other luxuries, but I at least now have even more time for my science work!

Date: 2012/11/25 23:49:22, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 25 2012,23:31)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 25 2012,21:47)
     
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 25 2012,21:25)
       
Quote
In more recent years I discovered that genomes and higher order cellular processes such as chemotaxis work the same way.

I wonder if you meant to say gene pool rather than genome. After all, a gene pool does keep a record of sorts of things that worked (while not keeping a record of things to avoid doing again), and it has a way of trying lots of minor variations (although no way of reliably trying large variations to rewrite something that was done badly).

Henry

The gene pool still relies on single individuals to come up with unique solutions to problems such as digesting nylon, antibiotic resistance, differentiation into new cell morphologies.

At the "molecular intelligence" level the gene pool is a "collective intelligence" or more specifically "molecular collective intelligence".

Did the single bacterium that according to your theory invented nylonase somehow sensed nylon? In other words how did it become aware of the fact that nylon can be digested and how did it then develop the idea that changing the coding sequence of another proteinwould produce a protein degrading nylon?

That's another largely unknown area of science, and the phrase "random mutation" is misleading since there might be a "good guess" mechanism which caused the coding change (at the molecular/genetic level) by sensing a potential new food source. Something similar (although not bacterial) to what I am describing is Somatic hypermutation (preferably of a newly duplicated gene which are known to relatively quickly change).

Date: 2012/11/26 08:20:39, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 26 2012,01:37)
Are you saying that bacteria self-modify?  It really seems like this is what you are saying?  Is it?  Bacteria modify their own genes?  Please try to keep your answer under 17,000 words and no music links.

As long as "self-modify" is not loaded with anthropomorphic and/or religious meaning and is kept scientific as in the phrase "gene modification" then yes, bacteria can (self-)modify their own genes. There is no scientific controversy over that being true.

Date: 2012/11/26 08:46:24, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,08:39)
Right, so you are redefining "learning" to mean "DNA exchange".  You are redefining "intelligence" to mean "any activity that's beyond what you think should happen".

The truth is that you are redefining terms in order to discredit scientific theory which operationally defines the already in scientific use phrases "cellular intelligence" and "molecular intelligence".

Anyway, I'm off to my day job!

Date: 2012/11/26 17:13:54, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,09:24)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,06:20)
     
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 26 2012,01:37)
Are you saying that bacteria self-modify?  It really seems like this is what you are saying?  Is it?  Bacteria modify their own genes?  Please try to keep your answer under 17,000 words and no music links.

As long as "self-modify" is not loaded with anthropomorphic and/or religious meaning and is kept scientific as in the phrase "gene modification" then yes, bacteria can (self-)modify their own genes. There is no scientific controversy over that being true.

So are you saying that bacteria choose to modify their genes?*


The cellular intelligence of a bacterium no more chooses to modify their genes than you choose to digest your food after eating. It just happens.

At the molecular intelligence level of a bacterium (a genome) it is the same as saying that a somatic cell can choose to modify their genes through somatic hypermutation.

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,09:24)
That nylonase was a deliberated response to exposure to nylon, and not just an advantageous variation that resulted in differential reproductive success?


Since "deliberated" can be used as a loaded word indicating "God did it" you will have to rephrase the question before I can answer that.

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,09:24)
Or do you consider random variation part of your "molecular/cellular intelligence" paradigm?


The phrase "random variation" does not apply to this cognitive theory, therefore it is never used. It is a generalization which encourages sloppy science whereby you still feel intellectually fulfilled even though you did not explain a damn thing about how said "variation" occurred or why.

Date: 2012/11/26 20:08:00, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,19:48)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,17:13)
   
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,09:24)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,06:20)
           
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 26 2012,01:37)
Are you saying that bacteria self-modify?  It really seems like this is what you are saying?  Is it?  Bacteria modify their own genes?  Please try to keep your answer under 17,000 words and no music links.

As long as "self-modify" is not loaded with anthropomorphic and/or religious meaning and is kept scientific as in the phrase "gene modification" then yes, bacteria can (self-)modify their own genes. There is no scientific controversy over that being true.

So are you saying that bacteria choose to modify their genes?*


The cellular intelligence of a bacterium no more chooses to modify their genes than you choose to digest your food after eating. It just happens.

At the molecular intelligence level of a bacterium (a genome) it is the same as saying that a somatic cell can choose to modify their genes through somatic hypermutation.

   
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,09:24)
That nylonase was a deliberated response to exposure to nylon, and not just an advantageous variation that resulted in differential reproductive success?


Since "deliberated" can be used as a loaded word indicating "God did it" you will have to rephrase the question before I can answer that.

   
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,09:24)
Or do you consider random variation part of your "molecular/cellular intelligence" paradigm?


The phrase "random variation" does not apply to this cognitive theory, therefore it is never used. It is a generalization which encourages sloppy science whereby you still feel intellectually fulfilled even though you did not explain a damn thing about how said "variation" occurred or why.

This is not what you claim in your "paper".  You specifically state that bacteria and embryos choose to change their genome.

Interesting, you appear to have changed your document and it no longer contains that phrase.  Have you changed your mind then?

Here is revision 340 uploaded Nov 14, 2012 3:12 AM:

https://sites.google.com/site.......ion=340

Show where it specifically states that "bacteria and embryos choose to change their genome."

Here is the current revision 341 uploaded 21 hours ago. I am posting here in case you next try to accuse me of giving you a bogus file:

https://sites.google.com/site.......ion=341

At this point you are straight-out talking trash, and I have seriously had it with your demeaning scam. Now show me where you found "bacteria and embryos choose to change their genome."

Date: 2012/11/26 21:36:15, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,20:52)
I posted about your notion that embryos control their own genome changes here: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y212294

and here: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y212310

and here: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y212232

and here: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=390

The one immediately above is where you specifically defend your notion.

So, all of those times you could have said "I never said that", you instead defend it... until now.

And you just happen to have posted a version of your paper up that may or may not contain (I don't know because I've been denied access).

Whatever.

How did I know you would be another creep who quote-mines the thread in order to make it appear that is what I claimed in the theory/paper?

You said:

 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,19:48)

This is not what you claim in your "paper".  You specifically state that bacteria and embryos choose to change their genome.

Interesting, you appear to have changed your document and it no longer contains that phrase.  Have you changed your mind then?


Instead of quoting from a "paper" the best you could do is quote yourself making the same accusation, and link to things I said that have nothing at all to do with what you are talking about.

The first url says:

 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 10 2012,21:41)
Here's a funny story Gary.

Shockingly, I don't have a Ph.D. in anything.  I'm a 'self-learner', but the difference between you and I is that I actually learn something about what I choose to talk about on the internet where everyone can read what I write.

Did you know that 'self-learners' can publish in peer-reviewed journals?  I'm still deciding if it's worth the effort it would take for me to write up the article I want to do.  You see, unlike you, I'd have to look up several hundred references and include them with the article.  You know, all those references that provide support to the things I would say in my article... oh wait, no, you must not know that.

BTW: Are you ever going to answer any of the questions I specifically asked about your specific article.

1) Do you understand that you are fundamentally mistaken about natural selection?
2) Do you have any support for an embryo modifying its genome after fertilization?
3) Do you have any support for any organism consciously choosing to modify its genome at any point in time?
4) Do you know how to develop a graph that meets the minimum requirements of 3rd grade school children?
5) There was some more, but that's all I remember and it's not worth the effort to look up, because we both know you won't acknowledge these questions... much less answer them.


The second quotes me as saying:

"I’ll soon be back with more to address newest questions, to hopefully help make this an even brighter Sunday reply for you as well, to start off another interesting new science week with."

Third quotes me as saying:

"It’s also an insult to try making it seem that I do not already know that the Traveling Salesman Problem is one of many thousands of ways to test for intelligence. But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself are not good enough for the ones who demand I beat their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to. They only care about tests which will at the same time prove that a pocket calculator or simple math algorithm is more intelligent than a human. In science like this, such tests are simply unacceptable. And I am not going to play games with ones who demand that they be allowed to cheat."

The fifth url links to the top of page 14.

At least you did a fine job of proving that you are just another one of the parasites on a feeding-frenzy to bleed science to death.

Date: 2012/11/26 22:05:04, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
And even though it's a shame I have to waste even more time in this childish forum I uploaded the Nov 14 version to here:

https://sites.google.com/site.......v14.doc

https://docs.google.com/viewer?....YjllZTU

That eliminates your other excuse.

Date: 2012/11/26 22:08:50, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 26 2012,22:02)
If the mutations leading to a new abilities were deliberately put there by an intelligence of some sort (whether internal or external), I would think that would imply that immediately useful mutations would be a very high proportion of the total number of mutations that occurred in the relevant population during the time period in question.

That looks to me like a testable prediction.

Henry

It's the same way your brain learns, unless of course you believe that all of your abilities were deliberately put there by an intelligence of some sort (whether internal or external).

Date: 2012/11/26 22:14:51, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 26 2012,22:06)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,17:13)
The phrase "random variation" does not apply to this cognitive theory, therefore it is never used. It is a generalization which encourages sloppy science whereby you still feel intellectually fulfilled even though you did not explain a damn thing about how said "variation" occurred or why.

But variation is real. Thus, any theory that wants to model reality has to regard it. Even if we wouldn't know the molecular mechanisms underlying genetic variation we could still measure it. This was even possible before the identification of DNA. You may want to look up G. Mendel.

In addition, who if not you should be blamed for generalisation. You had one idea or rather one single wrongful thought in your life you are now applying to any phenomenon you encounter.

BTW, you didn't reply to my question how bacteria that don't possess a nylonase gene sense nylon in thir environment.

The phrase "random variation" (not the single word "variation") is from another paradigm which implies that all variations are statistically random, which is not true.

Date: 2012/11/26 22:17:14, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 26 2012,22:11)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,23:08)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 26 2012,22:02)
If the mutations leading to a new abilities were deliberately put there by an intelligence of some sort (whether internal or external), I would think that would imply that immediately useful mutations would be a very high proportion of the total number of mutations that occurred in the relevant population during the time period in question.

That looks to me like a testable prediction.

Henry

It's the same way your brain learns

no, the fuck, it is not.

Date: 2012/11/26 22:33:58, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 26 2012,22:06)
BTW, you didn't reply to my question how bacteria that don't possess a nylonase gene sense nylon in thir environment.

And on that question: Considering how the prevailing paradigm assumes it was "just random" it's another void in scientific knowledge caused by sloppy science that does not bother to look for how the change occurred.  And I sure cannot afford to fund my own research that was to redo all the incomplete/misleading experiments that have been published.

Date: 2012/11/26 22:35:39, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,22:30)
Dude... really.  We have now devolved into "he said, she said".

I think the evidence points in the favor of that phrase being in the original document I read.  You have no idea what evidence is, so it really doesn't matter.

For example, you think evidence is a graph of meaningless gibberish.

Please, define evidence and give two examples.

Grow up..

Date: 2012/11/26 22:36:37, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 26 2012,22:30)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,22:14)
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 26 2012,22:06)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,17:13)
The phrase "random variation" does not apply to this cognitive theory, therefore it is never used. It is a generalization which encourages sloppy science whereby you still feel intellectually fulfilled even though you did not explain a damn thing about how said "variation" occurred or why.

But variation is real. Thus, any theory that wants to model reality has to regard it. Even if we wouldn't know the molecular mechanisms underlying genetic variation we could still measure it. This was even possible before the identification of DNA. You may want to look up G. Mendel.

In addition, who if not you should be blamed for generalisation. You had one idea or rather one single wrongful thought in your life you are now applying to any phenomenon you encounter.

BTW, you didn't reply to my question how bacteria that don't possess a nylonase gene sense nylon in thir environment.

The phrase "random variation" (not the single word "variation") is from another paradigm which implies that all variations are statistically random, which is not true.

what do you mean by "statistically random"?

I bet five Tardaloons we have a random = equiprobable fail.

Google it.

Date: 2012/11/26 22:56:57, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 26 2012,22:44)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 27 2012,04:33)
And I sure cannot afford to fund my own research that was to redo all the incomplete/misleading experiments that have been published.

To which incomplete or misleading experiments are you referring, Gary?

Instead of another 30 pages of rubbish why don't you select one of these published papers and explain why you think it's misleading and/or incomplete?

We'd love to see your expert analysis.

Here's what I reference in the theory, because of being better than nothing:

S Ohno, Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence., Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 81:2421-2425, 1984.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/article....=345072

All you need is the title and maybe abstract of the paper so you can boast about how wonderful the theory you follow is, while I need to know the exact mechanism including any sensory systems that may be involved.

Date: 2012/11/26 23:41:12, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 26 2012,23:01)
 
Quote
It's the same way your brain learns, unless of course you believe that all of your abilities were deliberately put there by an intelligence of some sort (whether internal or external).

No. Changes to the gene pool are a result of things like various types of mutations, recombination, and a few rarer mechanisms.

In a neural network, the basic component is changes to the connections between neurons (nodes in the network). Both are random, but the similarity ends there.

Note that random does not mean that all possible results have the same probability. In the case of mutations, the relative probabilities are caused by the chemical properties of the DNA and the other molecules with which it reacts.

If mutations weren't random with respect to reproductive success a significant proportion of the time, that would produce a detectable pattern, i.e., a larger fraction of useful mutations and a smaller fraction of detrimental ones.

Henry

I posted the Intelligent Causation illustration to show what I am saying about it being systematically "the same way your brain learns".

It also sounds like you are saying that somatic hypermutation is a totally random event with a normal mutation rate like any other cell. Either that or you are suggesting that I am talking about tiny supernatural gene fairies or something equally weird.

A viable experiment here would be to clone e.coli in ideal conditions, while comparing to those cloned in conditions where there are antibiotics, teratogens and other near fatal chemicals that at first kills almost all of them off. For good luck clone a batch that only has for a food source a well worn nylon stocking and maybe a sweaty/smelly cotton blend gym sock to help get them started on their new nylonase diet.

Date: 2012/11/26 23:56:51, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Typo, the word "nylonase" should read "nylon" or better yet be removed due to it being redundant:

A viable experiment here would be to clone e.coli in ideal conditions, while comparing to those cloned in conditions where there are antibiotics, teratogens and other near fatal chemicals that at first kills almost all of them off. For good luck clone a batch that only has for a food source a well worn nylon stocking and maybe a sweaty/smelly cotton blend gym sock to help get them started on their new diet.

Anyway, if mutations are indeed like some suggest random and without reason then perfect clones should be produced for an equal number of generations, in any condition.

Date: 2012/11/27 00:10:08, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 26 2012,23:39)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,22:33)
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 26 2012,22:06)
BTW, you didn't reply to my question how bacteria that don't possess a nylonase gene sense nylon in thir environment.

And on that question: Considering how the prevailing paradigm assumes it was "just random" it's another void in scientific knowledge caused by sloppy science that does not bother to look for how the change occurred.  And I sure cannot afford to fund my own research that was to redo all the incomplete/misleading experiments that have been published.

You don't need to do your own research. Thinking would suffice. Your theory imply that a bacterium that doesn't contain a nylonase gene somehow senses nylon - otherwise how would it be capable of making an intelligent decision. Thus, you have to assume at least a second molecule that recognizes nylon. Alternatively you would have to assume that the product of the to be nylonase gene senses nylon and then gives some feed back to its coding sequence that induces its a nucleotide change. Nothing like that has ever been observed. And you betterlookup somatic hypermutation before you mention it again.

It could also be caused by a major case of indigestion caused by eating what it cannot digest, because of that being almost all it has for food. Stress like this is known to produce genetic changes.

Date: 2012/11/27 00:18:35, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
And:
Quote
Somatic hypermutation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......utation

Somatic hypermutation (or SHM) is a cellular mechanism by which the immune system adapts to the new foreign elements that confront it (for example, microbes). A major component of the process of affinity maturation, SHM diversifies B cell receptors used to recognize foreign elements (antigens) and allows the immune system to adapt its response to new threats during the lifetime of an organism.[1] Somatic hypermutation involves a programmed process of mutation affecting the variable regions of immunoglobulin genes. Unlike germline mutation, SHM affects only individual immune cells, and the mutations are not transmitted to offspring.[2]
Mistargeted somatic hypermutation is a likely mechanism in the development of B-cell lymphomas.[3]

Targeting

When a B cell recognizes an antigen, it is stimulated to divide (or proliferate). During proliferation, the B cell receptor locus undergoes an extremely high rate of somatic mutation that is at least 10^5 - 10^6 fold greater than the normal rate of mutation across the genome.[2] Variation is mainly in the form of single base substitutions, with insertions and deletions being less common. These mutations occur mostly at “hotspots” in the DNA, known as hypervariable regions. These regions correspond to the complementarity determining regions; the sites involved in antigen recognition on the immunoglobulin.[4] The exact nature of this targeting is poorly understood, although is thought to be controlled by a balance of error-prone and high fidelity repair.[5] This directed hypermutation allows for the selection of B cells that express immunoglobulin receptors possessing an enhanced ability to recognize and bind a specific foreign antigen.[1]

Date: 2012/11/27 00:38:17, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 27 2012,00:16)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 27 2012,00:10)
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 26 2012,23:39)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,22:33)
 
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 26 2012,22:06)
BTW, you didn't reply to my question how bacteria that don't possess a nylonase gene sense nylon in thir environment.

And on that question: Considering how the prevailing paradigm assumes it was "just random" it's another void in scientific knowledge caused by sloppy science that does not bother to look for how the change occurred.  And I sure cannot afford to fund my own research that was to redo all the incomplete/misleading experiments that have been published.

You don't need to do your own research. Thinking would suffice. Your theory imply that a bacterium that doesn't contain a nylonase gene somehow senses nylon - otherwise how would it be capable of making an intelligent decision. Thus, you have to assume at least a second molecule that recognizes nylon. Alternatively you would have to assume that the product of the to be nylonase gene senses nylon and then gives some feed back to its coding sequence that induces its a nucleotide change. Nothing like that has ever been observed. And you betterlookup somatic hypermutation before you mention it again.

It could also be caused by a major case of indigestion caused by eating what it cannot digest, because of that being almost all it has for food. Stress like this is known to produce genetic changes.

What do you mean by ingestion? Endocytosis? Pinocytosis? Receptor mediated uptake?

Indigestion is the inability to properly digest what is being consuming. Like an antibiotic, the nylon then has to be broken down into non-toxic compounds, or it perishes.

Date: 2012/11/27 01:08:41, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 27 2012,00:21)
Why then do you use the active voice, as in "Bacteria can (self-)modify their genes."?  If it's not a choice, why introduce "intelligence"?


It is a known fact that bacterial genomes change over time. And unless you have a Flying Natural Selection Monster shuffling their nucleotides around with its noodley appendages then it is something that the bacterial genomes (its molecular intelligence) hence the bacteria are themselves capable of.

And I introduced "intelligence" because it is there. That is why animals as complex as humans now exist. If there is no genetic ability to "self-learn" then humans could not exist.

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 27 2012,00:21)
Nature is sloppy (which is, I think, what really sticks your craw).


What really sticks my craw are condescending noodle-heads who think they know-it-all. The least you can do is use the proper phrasing "molecular intelligence" or "cellular intelligence" instead of the usual grade school generalizations that make me wonder if I'm talking to children.

Date: 2012/11/27 10:20:05, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 27 2012,03:40)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,23:56)
Typo, the word "nylonase" should read "nylon" or better yet be removed due to it being redundant:

A viable experiment here would be to clone e.coli in ideal conditions, while comparing to those cloned in conditions where there are antibiotics, teratogens and other near fatal chemicals that at first kills almost all of them off. For good luck clone a batch that only has for a food source a well worn nylon stocking and maybe a sweaty/smelly cotton blend gym sock to help get them started on their new diet.

Anyway, if mutations are indeed like some suggest random and without reason then perfect clones should be produced for an equal number of generations, in any condition.

This has been already done and resaults have been published. Read about Richard Lenski's work with LTEE.

Once you have read his papers (presuming you can read them) please come back and tell us why some of the e.colli evolved Cit+ mutation and why others didn't? Were they dumber?

I recall Richard Lenski's bacterial evolution experiment. In fact I had it on my mind when I was writing that. It's evidence that what I said is true. If you take away the adverse conditions they are being forced to adapt to then cloning is easy, otherwise it's impossible because the clones will not survive for long in that environment.

To the question of which is dumber, the comparison is between identical clones with the exact same molecular intelligence (genome) in the exact same learning environment. Which one is the first to take a good guess that works is not necessarily an indication that the others are dumber, they were simply the first to find a successful solution to a problem. It's possible that another soon finds an even better solution.

Date: 2012/11/27 10:38:41, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
And I have to add that Plant Source Code is back online!!  It was offline for days, and I was not the only one worried that it was gone for good. But before panicking I did my best to be patient, by taking the advice of someone who said it's probably just routine maintenance. I'm now in a great mood! Welcome back PSC!!!

Date: 2012/11/27 10:54:59, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
And I have to add (plus fix typo)  that Planet Source Code is back online!!  It was offline for days, and I was not the only one worried that it was gone for good. But before panicking I did my best to be patient, by taking the advice of someone who said it's probably just routine maintenance. I'm now in a great mood! Welcome back PSC!!!

Also, it went offline right after I took the advice to link my signature line image to somewhere else, then put it on one of my download sites. If I didn't do that then it would have suddenly vanished, like I saw happen to someone else who linked directly to their site.

Date: 2012/11/27 11:28:46, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 27 2012,11:14)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 27 2012,10:20)
 
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 27 2012,03:40)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,23:56)
Typo, the word "nylonase" should read "nylon" or better yet be removed due to it being redundant:

A viable experiment here would be to clone e.coli in ideal conditions, while comparing to those cloned in conditions where there are antibiotics, teratogens and other near fatal chemicals that at first kills almost all of them off. For good luck clone a batch that only has for a food source a well worn nylon stocking and maybe a sweaty/smelly cotton blend gym sock to help get them started on their new diet.

Anyway, if mutations are indeed like some suggest random and without reason then perfect clones should be produced for an equal number of generations, in any condition.

This has been already done and resaults have been published. Read about Richard Lenski's work with LTEE.

Once you have read his papers (presuming you can read them) please come back and tell us why some of the e.colli evolved Cit+ mutation and why others didn't? Were they dumber?

I recall Richard Lenski's bacterial evolution experiment. In fact I had it on my mind when I was writing that. It's evidence that what I said is true. If you take away the adverse conditions they are being forced to adapt to then cloning is easy, otherwise it's impossible because the clones will not survive for long in that environment.

To the question of which is dumber, the comparison is between identical clones with the exact same molecular intelligence (genome) in the exact same learning environment. Which one is the first to take a good guess that works is not necessarily an indication that the others are dumber, they were simply the first to find a successful solution to a problem. It's possible that another soon finds an even better solution.

 
Quote

I recall Richard Lenski's bacterial evolution experiment. In fact I had it on my mind when I was writing that.


Then your memory isn't very good please re-read his papers because the first time round you weren't present when you supposedly read them.

 
Quote

It's evidence that what I said is true. If you take away the adverse conditions they are being forced to adapt to then cloning is easy, otherwise it's impossible because the clones will not survive for long in that environment.


Really? Please point out which colonies didn't survive cause Dr Lenski isn't aware he has undead bacteria in his lab and he should be immediately warned of this horrific revelation.

 
Quote

To the question of which is dumber, the comparison is between identical clones with the exact same molecular intelligence (genome) in the exact same learning environment....


Great so you say it was random chance that ara -3 got there before the others?  

Also it would be very useful if you could  please identify where the repository for generating tandem duplications of CIT+ is physically held in say generation 5,000 of colony ara -3. Please be specific.

You are now using academic snobbery to change the subject away from bacteria which are being forced to adapt or perish, in comparison to ones which are given ideal conditions for cloning.

It would help to answer this with a yes/no answer: Are you arguing that cloning is equally easy in an environment the clones cannot survive for very long?

Date: 2012/11/27 11:58:34, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2012,11:55)
You do understand that citrate was used in the experiment as a stabilzer for the media because E. coli can't metabolize it right?

You do understand that the bacterial populations had plenty of normal food during these experiments right?

You do understand that Lenski was NOT trying to grow an E. coli population that could metabolize citrate right?

No, I guess not.

It would help to answer this with a yes/no answer: Are you arguing that cloning is equally easy in an environment in which the clones cannot survive for very long?

Date: 2012/11/27 12:24:25, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 27 2012,12:13)
Gary, it is actually you who should ask questions. And it doesn't help if you change from phages to nylonase and the to Lenski's experiment. You just can not demonstrate the intelligence you believe is driving adaptions in any of these systems. You only demonstrate that you don't know nothing about biology.

Or in other words you would rather make it appear that I was the one who changed the subject to Lenski's experiment, than discuss a relevant experiment I proposed for testing the theory.

Date: 2012/11/27 18:06:49, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2012,12:51)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 27 2012,11:58)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2012,11:55)
You do understand that citrate was used in the experiment as a stabilzer for the media because E. coli can't metabolize it right?

You do understand that the bacterial populations had plenty of normal food during these experiments right?

You do understand that Lenski was NOT trying to grow an E. coli population that could metabolize citrate right?

No, I guess not.

It would help to answer this with a yes/no answer: Are you arguing that cloning is equally easy in an environment in which the clones cannot survive for very long?

If the reproduction time for the clones is less than the average time to death, then yes.

However, that has absolutely nothing to do with anything we're talking about.

In Lenski's experiments, the bacteria are not in a hostile environment.  In the case of the nylonase bacteria, they were not in a hostile environment.

In both cases, a mutation (or series thereof) allowed bacteria to exploit a niche that was previously unavailable.  This led to rapid growth of the population because there are no competitors.

Now, do you understand that this is the case and your question is meaningless in the actual discussion that is taking place?

Stop moving the goalposts!!

I have not been talking about giving all of the clone groups plenty of normal food. Only the control group would have ideal conditions for the cell line to remain unchanged. All other groups are stressed out, forced to learn a new trick (adapt) to new food sources and environmental conditions or they soon perish.  Cognitive theory more or less predicts the old saying "Necessity is the mother of invention" will hold true in regard to the molecular intelligence (genome) part of the cell.

Date: 2012/11/27 21:30:14, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Relevant clue:
Quote
Evolution Under Environmental Stress at Macro- and Microscales
Eviatar Nevo*

Abstract

Environmental stress has played a major role in the evolution of living organisms (Hoffman AA, Parsons PA. 1991. Evolutionary genetics and environmental stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Parsons PA. 2005. Environments and evolution: interactions between stress, resource inadequacy, and energetic efficiency. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 80:589–610). This is reflected by the massive and background extinctions in evolutionary time (Nevo E. 1995a. Evolution and extinction. Encyclopedia of Environmental Biology. New York: Academic Press, Inc. 1:717–745). The interaction between organism and environment is central in evolution. Extinction ensues when organisms fail to change and adapt to the constantly altering abiotic and biotic stressful environmental changes as documented in the fossil record. Extreme environmental stress causes extinction but also leads to evolutionary change and the origination of new species adapted to new environments. I will discuss a few of these global, regional, and local stresses based primarily on my own research programs. These examples will include the 1) global regional and local experiment of subterranean mammals; 2) regional experiment of fungal life in the Dead Sea; 3) evolution of wild cereals; 4) “Evolution Canyon”; 5) human brain evolution, and 6) global warming.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........3227405

Date: 2012/11/27 21:57:02, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 27 2012,21:35)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 27 2012,21:30)
Relevant clue:
 
Quote
Evolution Under Environmental Stress at Macro- and Microscales
Eviatar Nevo*

Abstract

Environmental stress has played a major role in the evolution of living organisms (Hoffman AA, Parsons PA. 1991. Evolutionary genetics and environmental stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Parsons PA. 2005. Environments and evolution: interactions between stress, resource inadequacy, and energetic efficiency. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 80:589–610). This is reflected by the massive and background extinctions in evolutionary time (Nevo E. 1995a. Evolution and extinction. Encyclopedia of Environmental Biology. New York: Academic Press, Inc. 1:717–745). The interaction between organism and environment is central in evolution. Extinction ensues when organisms fail to change and adapt to the constantly altering abiotic and biotic stressful environmental changes as documented in the fossil record. Extreme environmental stress causes extinction but also leads to evolutionary change and the origination of new species adapted to new environments. I will discuss a few of these global, regional, and local stresses based primarily on my own research programs. These examples will include the 1) global regional and local experiment of subterranean mammals; 2) regional experiment of fungal life in the Dead Sea; 3) evolution of wild cereals; 4) “Evolution Canyon”; 5) human brain evolution, and 6) global warming.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........3227405

Do you cite this paper to refer to Dr. Lenski's work?

No, I did not cite this paper to refer to Dr. Lenski's work. This paper discusses what I was talking about, while you and others tried to make it seem like it was impossible for me to be making perfect sense.

Date: 2012/11/27 22:47:02, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 27 2012,21:38)
   
Quote
I posted the Intelligent Causation illustration to show what I am saying about it being systematically "the same way your brain learns".

And I posted what I said because there are significant differences between how a species evolves and how a neural network acquires knowledge. Comparing them may be interesting, but it is a very loose analogy.


The only difference is that the system is made of neurons. There is also multiplexing that the usual neural network models do not cover, for example grid, place and head direction cells (likely part of RAM Addressing circuitry but none are yet sure exactly how it works). Here's one of my science projects to help myself and others better understand the process:

http://www.kcfs.org/phpBB3.....#p20245

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 27 2012,21:38)
   
Quote
It also sounds like you are saying that somatic hypermutation is a totally random event with a normal mutation rate like any other cell.

I didn't say anything about immune system cells. As I understand that, what they do is manage to speed up mutation in some regions of their DNA while (I presume) minimizing it elsewhere; in essence a genetic algorithm. The mutation in those are indeed random, just with a higher frequency in some areas that affect tendency of the cell to detect and attach to trespassers.


Hypermutation is not accounted for in a typical GA, it works like the computer model in the theory. In molecular intelligence what you are seeing is it taking "good guesses". Only one data region of the DNA RAM changes in response to previous memory actions not working, not entire genome, as is required/predicted by the model in theory.

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 27 2012,21:38)
   
Quote
Anyway, if mutations are indeed like some suggest random and without reason then perfect clones should be produced for an equal number of generations, in any condition.

I presume that's assuming that the method of cloning somehow prevents mutations during the cell divisions.
That strikes me as unlikely.


No, see my previous reply with a paper on how that one works.

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 27 2012,21:38)
   
Quote
The least you can do is use the proper phrasing "molecular intelligence" or "cellular intelligence" instead of the usual grade school generalizations

Those two phrases are not appropriate for discussions of chemistry and cellular biology. The word "intelligence" doesn't add anything to the understanding of those subjects. If somebody developing computer software or hardware used molecules as components, that could make the phrase relevant in that field, but not to biology.


In case you did not see it yet this is an excellent resource for Cellular Intelligence:

http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehl....nt0.htm

Molecular Intelligence is still an emerging concept, which seriously needs this theory to properly operationally define and explain how it works.

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 27 2012,21:38)
In evolution, mutations, recombinations, and a few other things increase the amount of variety in the species. In a large population, alleles that are widespread would get most of the possible point mutations tested periodically; that's just statistics, not intelligence. Selection and genetic drift generally reduce the amount of variety; when things are stable a balance is reached between the things that increase variety and the things that decrease it. When things aren't stable, these processes can produce a positive feedback effect that might or might not optimize some feature of the organisms in that species.

Henry

You are trying to describe what I am talking about using the generalizations of a paradigm which missses what is most important to understand about the underlying process. Its systematically works the exact same way as any other self-learning system at other intelligence levels.

Date: 2012/11/28 06:15:55, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
I am on my way to my day job Southstar. I can not babysit you today. But maybe your mommy can read this to you, while I am gone.  

Theory of Intelligent Design

If you have questions, when I will answer them for you, when I get home. Be good!

Date: 2012/11/29 07:20:58, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
At least Wesley will be happy to know that his followers are still eager to help ”deal out punishment” for not stopping, at their science-stopper.

Date: 2012/11/29 08:37:07, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 29 2012,07:56)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2012,07:51)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 29 2012,07:20)
At least Wesley will be happy to know that his followers are still eager to help ”deal out punishment” for not stopping, at their science-stopper.

Gary, we're just making fun of you and your VB 'theory'. No one is stoping / stomping on / oppressing you. So you can take your crown of thorns off.

Shockingly, some of us are actually trying to help you.  If you get this thing polished, referenced, and complete to at least an 8th grade level... oh yeah and have it match actual observations and known science... then you have a shot at getting someone to actually use it and do something with it.

If you think we're harsh, it's because you aren't listening very well.  That and you can't even explain the concept you are trying to get across.

But other than that, it's... a notion.

I appreciate the actual help. And I have been polishing it up as I go, with whatever free time I have. But demands for references for what has never been explained before is just another science-stopper.

Wesley and others were simply a creep by trashing it before even reading what I wrote. I'm hoping for an apology.

Anyway, I’m of time, so it’s back to my day job!

Date: 2012/11/29 16:02:43, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 29 2012,09:03)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 29 2012,08:37)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 29 2012,07:56)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2012,07:51)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 29 2012,07:20)
At least Wesley will be happy to know that his followers are still eager to help ”deal out punishment” for not stopping, at their science-stopper.

Gary, we're just making fun of you and your VB 'theory'. No one is stoping / stomping on / oppressing you. So you can take your crown of thorns off.

Shockingly, some of us are actually trying to help you.  If you get this thing polished, referenced, and complete to at least an 8th grade level... oh yeah and have it match actual observations and known science... then you have a shot at getting someone to actually use it and do something with it.

If you think we're harsh, it's because you aren't listening very well.  That and you can't even explain the concept you are trying to get across.

But other than that, it's... a notion.

I appreciate the actual help. And I have been polishing it up as I go, with whatever free time I have. But demands for references for what has never been explained before is just another science-stopper.

Wesley and others were simply a creep by trashing it before even reading what I wrote. I'm hoping for an apology.

Anyway, I’m of time, so it’s back to my day job!

NO NO NO NO

The only science stopper here is you.  Why?  Because you are not using science to support your work.

I know you don't get this, but you have to have those references, all of them, in your work to show that you have support for everything you say and that you have considered alternate hypotheses and why those don't work.

And that's the biggest flaw in your work.  There is nothing in the work you've presented or the statements you've made here that indicate you have any understanding of what is really going on in the world of science.  Further, you seem to have no concept of the scientific method, how to gather evidence, how to design a good experiment, and how to display and communicate the data developed in those experiments.

You make dozens of claims, none of which have any evidential support at all.  You are assuming the thing you're supposed to be providing evidence for.  And you are misusing scientific terminology.

You are not accepting this criticism in any constructive way.  You are defending the things you've said, but you are doing so without providing any evidence that they are true statements.  And again, you are saying things that are known to be wrong.

That's why I asked you those three questions about Lenski's experiments.  You assumed that Lenski was trying to develop a citrate consuming E. coli.  He wasn't, he never was, and that was never the point of the experiment he was doing.  It happened and it resulted in some of the greatest work on evolution in the modern age.

Or in other words: You would rather philosophize, act sincere while being condescending, put words in my mouth, continually change the subject, while making it seem like it’s my fault you cannot understand the theory (if you even studied it at all).

Thankfully, I only needed to show how scientifically useless this forum is. I will now spend more time where science and science education is valued, instead of ones for bashing religion and politically inconvenient theory.

Date: 2012/11/29 20:57:01, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 29 2012,20:50)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 29 2012,16:02)
I will now spend more time where science and science education is valued, instead of ones for bashing religion and politically inconvenient theory.

This would be where?

Let's just say it's "None of your damn business."

Date: 2012/11/29 21:40:11, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)
Jerry Don Bauer???

I am feeling old.

You ARE old, Doc....lol...

OK, fed about 500 homeless and hungry people a NICE TG dinner in my ministry.....I think we can gear back up over the next few days.

I scanned back over the old thread and feel I pretty much answered the questions there if people will go back and read the posts in detail.

I would like to begin this thread by simply throwing out an olive branch; over the years I have noticed something about my friends on the other side: You seem a bit paranoid in that you hone in on the radicals who embrace Intelligent Design at the peril of grasping the overall perspective of it. You let them freak you out.

You ignore the majority of us who's views may not be that different than yours, or at least the majority of those who study origins as a science.

As example, I, as an individual, do not want to see Darwinism thrown out of public schools, I just want to see it taught in truth and it's tenets, both pro and con, examined in honesty. Is there something wrong with with truth in science? I think most of you would agree there isn't.

I would also like to see the tenets of ID taught in the same manner, after all, it was the concept of ID that brought us most science, a good chunk of philosopy; and the gist of theology throughout history. Yet, there are some (just as radical on the Dawrinist side, I'm afraid) who would like to see THIS fact ignored in our public schools because of THEIR religious beliefs.

Ignore the Ken Hams...most of us think their views are nuts as well. Examine the truths of a concept that has; and will forever more, permeate society around the world. And understand that this is NOT some newfangled concept designed to pull science out of schools and infuse religion therein. This is only what you've been told by some of your own radicals. Were the early philosophers religious nuts?

Socrates [1a], Plato, Diogenes, and Aristotle were just a few of the philosophers to argue for teleology when contemplating the origins of life. The opposite pole of the spectrum, the materialists, were represented by such great minds as Democritus, Leucippus of Elea, and Epicurus of Samos.

Socrates once presented the human eye as evidence of the wisdom of intelligent design:

"Is not that providence, Aristodemus, in a most eminent manner conspicuous, which because the eye of man is delicate in its contexture, hath therefore prepared eyelids like doors, whereby to screen it, which extend themselves whenever it is needful, and again close when sleep approaches?…And cans't thou still doubt Aristodemus, whether a disposition of parts like this should be the work of chance, or of wisdom and contrivance?"

Although theologically, ID is often traced back to Paley's watch on the heath, what is little known is that much earlier, it was firmly entrenched into philosophy and later, others would tie intelligent design directly into science.

Another example of the philosophy aspect was St. Thomas Aquinus' 5 ways where he mused both Intelligent Design and also conceived a Prime Mover in the universe hundreds of years before Newton would firmly entrench into science the same concept in the form of a law: objects at rest will stay at rest and objects in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by a force.

And, more specific to science, was the work of English physician William Harvey, considered by many to have laid the foundation for modern medicine. Harvey was the first to demonstrate the function of the heart and the circulation of the blood.[2]

According to Barrow and Tipler [3], Harvey deduced the mammalian circulatory system using the epistemology of teleology: "The way in which this respect for Aristotle was realized in Harvey's works seems to have been in the search for discernible purpose in the workings of living organisms- indeed, the expectation of purposeful activity . . . he tried to conceive of how a purposeful designer would have constructed a system of motion."

Harvey commented to Robert Boyle (the father of modern Chemistry) how he conceived the layout of the circulatory system. He reasoned the shape and positioning of the valves in the system and invited himself to imagine “that so Provident a cause as Nature had not so placed many values without Design; and no Design seem'd more possible than that, since the Blood could not well, because of the interposing valves, be sent, by the veins to the limbs; it should be sent through the Arteries and return through the veins.”

Today, modern ID is a totally science based discipline that has no ghosts, gods, fairies, leprechauns or metaphysics in it anywhere. But you have to weed out those, just as are present on your side, who wish to twist and manipulate the discipline to suit their own religious beliefs,..... and they abound in number. Ignore them.....seek truth:

1) ID is a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts. That's it.

2) Other branches of science also use many of the same tenets to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics. Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, often it is termed to not be science anymore by many detractors.

3) Forget the identity of a designer. Do you need to know the name of the designer of your hair dryer in order to know it was designed? Does an archeologist need to know the name of the designer to conclude that a primitive artifact is a tool rather than a rock?

One reason that ID does not require a designer in the form of a deity is that quantum mechanics now provides evidence of an observer to provide the wave-collapse function to make matter solids/waves in the universe. Many of us look to this as the designer. One may call this observer Christ, Allah or Yahweh, agnostics may not know what to call it, and atheists can call it quantum mechanics. ID is one-size-fits-all!

4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers. Unfortunately, Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.

5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID." There is no such thing as ID biology or ID chemistry. We study science just as does everyone else.

6) Again: ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) or even Darwinism, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science altogether and base science back on the tenets of science. Something wrong with this?

7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.

So..... let's discuss.

[1a] This line of reasoning first condensed and compiled by Mike Gene. Please see reference 1 and read the Web Site listed under that reference.

[1] http://www.theism.net/article....le....2
Site managed by Mike Gene. KEY WORDS: gene, socrates, paley, barrow, darwin, teleology, materialism.

[1b] Paley, W. (1802). Natural Theology, Chapter One.

[2]Keynes, G. (1928). A bibliography of the writings of William Harvey, M.D., discoverer of the circulation of the blood. Cambridge Eng., University press.

[3] The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford Paperbacks), John D. Barrow, Frank J. Tipler. Chapter 1,

[4] Greek term for the end--teleology is a philosophy that muses completion, purpose, or a goal-driven process of any thing or activity. Aristotle argued that teleology is the final cause accounting for the existence and nature of a thing. Teleological: an explanation, theory, hypotheses or argument that emphasizes purpose.

Recommended reading: F. M. J. Waanders, History of Telos and Teleo in Ancient Greek (Benjamins, 1984)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jerry, before I have to stick a fork into this overcooked forum then call it done, I wanted to let you know that (from what this forum was saying about you) I was impressed by your answers. Earlier on you were discussing quantum mechanics and right away this illustration for showing that relationship came to my mind:


https://sites.google.com/site.......ion.GIF

Personally, I do not see the “Creator” being intelligent as we are, does not have to be to “create” life. Something intelligent starts off its life knowing nothing at all, has to learn from scratch. Something all-knowing would simply exist.  An always was, and always will be, sort of thing.

One area I did disagree with is there not being or needing a scientific Theory of Intelligent Design. Without it there is no way of knowing who is making more sense. In fact (although I still do not see a coherent theory from elsewhere) I used to be on the other side of the argument parroting “ID is not science” and the other slogans I picked up on the internet. That began to change after I realized that I had what I needed to clinch the theory. After following the evidence with it, I had to admit that it was an excellent scientific challenge.

The theory made me more accepting of Genesis but not religiously, I now see it as an ancient scientific theory that for its day was not that bad at all. Sure better than Greek and Roman mythology. It did not make a church goer though. My wife (a Catholic) goes with friends and/or her mother to the church she was brought up in, while I worked on projects that reconcile science and religion. After starting work on the theory that became my Sunday mission. With my having been brought up a Methodist I was in training to be a religious leader, as opposed to a follower, then when I was older finally graduated. By that time I was glad I didn’t have to go to Sunday School anymore, in part because of the teachings making little scientific sense. I still saw myself as a religious leader but from the science side of the divide that needs reconciling. I’m also still just as doubtful about ritual saving a person’s soul. It’s often used as a way to feel better for another week of being cruel to others, an excuse to do it again. If we keep coming back again (with no memory since intelligence is forced to learn from scratch each time) then it’s possible that we do in fact make our own hell where we in a sense suffer by experiencing the pain we knowingly caused to others, or the effects of change that hurts those who follow.

But before I go on all night about my personal religious views: Thanks to the theory I can now say that you are making more sense than your adversaries are. Without intelligence being part of the genetic mechanism there is almost no chance at all that living things could exist. That helps explain why CSI and such also exists, even though the odds of it are nearly zero. But as I earlier mentioned our Creator does not need to be intelligent, just the part of us that connects us to the Creator must be. Whether our Creator is consciously seeing through the eyes of all living things in the universe cannot be determined. But it now seems more scientifically possible than ever, thanks to the insight I gained from following the evidence where it leads, from the Theory of Intelligent Design.

All in all I still have to say I was impressed by your above reply, and later answers. So keep up the good work Jerry!

Date: 2012/11/29 21:59:49, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 29 2012,21:44)
all science so far!

Science is here:


Theory Of Intelligent Design

And by the way, Charles Darwin said that evolution was created by the Creator. Therefore the theory you believe in is equally religious, or even more religious when Theistic Evolutionists are considered due to their creating a whole new religion from his teachings. And Charles only had a divinity degree, not a science degree. Therefore according to your standard he was not a scientist, only a clergyman.

Date: 2012/11/29 23:30:52, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 29 2012,23:22)
So, this is like Joe G and FtK on a date.

Uh, l8r, folks, I need to take a shower!

Yes you need to take a shower. Even your reply stinks, really bad.

Date: 2012/11/30 01:00:02, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 30 2012,00:00)
Before you leave Gary: Does your theory say that hypermutation increases cellular intelligence and the number of intelligent solutions a cell can find?

Quote
REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS

To molecular intelligence a random change includes often damaging cosmic ray recoding of part of its genome. Although it is possible for chance improvements the living genome maintains control of the integrity of memory contents using error correction systems, for as few “random chance” memory changes as possible.

Although a random guess can at times be better than no guess at all, without some form of good-guess genetic recombination for systems on the scale of chromosomes the learning rate of the system would be very low, offspring would be clones of their parents.  Therefore a part of the cell cycle has “crossover exchange” where entire regions of chromosomes are safely swapped, to produce a new individual response to the environment that should work as well or better.  This is a good guess because the molecular intelligence is starting with what it has already learned then tries something new based upon that coded knowledge.  It is not randomly mixing coding regions in an uncontrolled scrambling which would be fatal to it.

Somatic hypermutation occurs when immune cells are fighting a losing battle with germs.  The cell responds by searching for a solution to the problem by rapidly taking good guesses. This produces new defensive molecules which become attached to their outside, to help grab onto an invader so it can be destroyed.

Another vital guess mechanism is called transposition (jumping genes), where a coded region of DNA (Data) physically moves to another location, effectively changing its Address location within the cell.  Guesses are also produced by code changes of genes and address change mechanisms such as duplications, deletions, crossover exchange, chromosome fusion/fission. Conjugation (cell addressed communication/sharing) may possibly include good guesses which are shared.

Date: 2012/12/01 01:32:31, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 30 2012,17:47)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 30 2012,14:59)
And by the way, Charles Darwin said that evolution was created by the Creator.

Well, he didn't, not in the way you imply. But that's not the point. The point is: so what if he did? Would that make evolution something less than a fact? What if he recanted his theory on his deathbed (another creationist favorite falsehood)? Wouldn't make it any less valid.


I had to paraphrase that one:

   
Quote
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."  

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
http://www.mprinstitute.org/vaclav.....av....]


This certainly dispels the myth that Charles Darwin was an Atheist. Needing that as the mechanism for the origin of life made it a very religious theory, and essentially still is. Those who accuse me of having a religious agenda/theory do not know that where the same standard is applied evenly to both sides, the Theory of Intelligent Design I represent is far more scientific than the theory Charles Darwin wrote.

   
Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 30 2012,17:47)
In fact if Charles Darwin had never been born modern science would look very much as it does now, and we would still have creationists here today, railing against Wallace or whoever else had come to prominence in the early days of evolutionary discovery.


After having read how that concept was explained in a WW2 era German science teacher manual, there is no doubt that it was at least very useful for the justification of Concentration Camps. It was believed that having been originally breathed by the Creator made them a Master Race which did not evolve while evolution turned all others into feeble minded apish creatures who they were obliged to exterminate.

   
Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 30 2012,17:47)
   
Quote
Therefore the theory you believe in is equally religious, or even more religious when Theistic Evolutionists are considered due to their creating a whole new religion from his teachings.

Darwin's teachings? This really shines the lights on your creationist mindset. Evolutionists; that is, people who accept that modern science has got things mostly right, are often religious - Buddhist, Islamic, Christian, Sikh, you name it, but no one looks to Darwin as any sort of messiah figure.


A number of religions (and many who say they have no religion) practice "hero worship" of Charles Darwin. It is also a way to use the public schools to degrade those who do not follow their ideology/religion.

 
Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 30 2012,17:47)
   
Quote
And Charles only had a divinity degree, not a science degree. Therefore according to your standard he was not a scientist, only a clergyman.

Yawn. You really have a poor grasp on logic. Darwin's background simply doesn't matter. What matters is his contribution to science, which was huge and profound.


I agree that what should be most important is not a science degree, it should be what one contributes to science. But that is not how the science world now works. Academia now controls who may receive funding and who are considered qualified for jobs by selling credentials/entitlement. As an "individual" I am not even allowed to receive funding. It's only a waste of time for me to apply for grants. And you are not the one with a paycheck that can't be cashed from a struggling company, who is living in poverty and going hungry right now because of your science/religion politics.

Places like this forum exist for the purpose of forever keeping me down, until I'm totally destroyed. My crime, is not doing as Wesley and other so-called science experts dictated. It's now payback time, for years of purposely making my life hell, all in the name of Charles Darwin and your scientific politics which do not allow any theory to come before the one which is now revered.

This dumb-down of science has received billions of dollars to promote and protect. You have no idea how much of a disgrace that actually is, and how angry I am at the hypocrisy.

Date: 2012/12/01 02:06:00, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Texas Teach @ Nov. 30 2012,20:59)
 
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 30 2012,19:04)
I'm getting confused!  Whose thread is this, anyway?

Joe G's or FtK's?

Seriously, you two, get a room!

The magic moment when they found that room.

Shinedown - Bully (Official Music Video)

Date: 2012/12/01 11:58:41, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 30 2012,06:18)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 30 2012,01:00)
   
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 30 2012,00:00)
Before you leave Gary: Does your theory say that hypermutation increases cellular intelligence and the number of intelligent solutions a cell can find?

Quote
REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS

To molecular intelligence a random change includes often damaging cosmic ray recoding of part of its genome. Although it is possible for chance improvements the living genome maintains control of the integrity of memory contents using error correction systems, for as few “random chance” memory changes as possible.

Although a random guess can at times be better than no guess at all, without some form of good-guess genetic recombination for systems on the scale of chromosomes the learning rate of the system would be very low, offspring would be clones of their parents.  Therefore a part of the cell cycle has “crossover exchange” where entire regions of chromosomes are safely swapped, to produce a new individual response to the environment that should work as well or better.  This is a good guess because the molecular intelligence is starting with what it has already learned then tries something new based upon that coded knowledge.  It is not randomly mixing coding regions in an uncontrolled scrambling which would be fatal to it.

Somatic hypermutation occurs when immune cells are fighting a losing battle with germs.  The cell responds by searching for a solution to the problem by rapidly taking good guesses. This produces new defensive molecules which become attached to their outside, to help grab onto an invader so it can be destroyed.

Another vital guess mechanism is called transposition (jumping genes), where a coded region of DNA (Data) physically moves to another location, effectively changing its Address location within the cell.  Guesses are also produced by code changes of genes and address change mechanisms such as duplications, deletions, crossover exchange, chromosome fusion/fission. Conjugation (cell addressed communication/sharing) may possibly include good guesses which are shared.

Since it may be to dificult to increase exposure to cosmic rays considerably I suggest that from now on you sleep under an UV tanning booth and find a job deep inside an atomic plant. If you don't already do you should definitively start smoking. Due to all the intelligence induced by these agents you may write something coherent one day.

Good idea, thanks..

Quote
REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS

Complex forms of molecular intelligence have sensory receptors on their surface membrane for different morphogenetic proteins (substance that evokes differentiation). Interaction of the protein with the receptor initiates a cascade of events that eventually turns on some genes and turns off others, aiding differentiation of the cell into brain, muscle and other unique cells.  Successful actions to take in response to environmental conditions are recalled from its RNA/DNA memory.  New memories can be formed as in the classic example of the origin of nylonase  where a successful response to environmental chemistry conditions is the result of a good guess that leads to a new action to be taken.

At the molecular intelligence level, good guesses are taken using mechanisms such as crossover exchange, chromosome fusion/fission, duplications, deletions and transpositions (jumping genes) whereby a coded region of DNA data physically moves to another location to effectively change its address location. Information shared by conjugation may possibly include good guesses which are incorporated into its genome. Somatic hypermutation occurs when immune cells are fighting a losing battle with germs. The cell then responds by searching for a solution to the problem by rapidly taking good guesses. This produces new defensive molecules which become attached to their outside, to help grab onto an invader so it can be destroyed.

Although a random guess can at times be better than no guess at all, uncontrolled random change (random mutation) in DNA coding is normally damaging. These are caused by (among other things) x-rays and gamma rays, UV light, smoke and chemical agents. Molecular intelligence systems normally use error correction mechanisms to prevent “random chance” memory changes from occurring. To qualify as a random guess, the molecular intelligence system itself must produce them. An exception is where random change/mutation is the only guess mechanism that it has, which may have existed at dawn of life, in the very first living things.

Without some form of good-guess genetic recombination the learning rate of the system would be very low. Offspring would normally be clones of their parents. Therefore a part of the cell cycle often has crossover exchange where entire regions of chromosomes are safely swapped, to produce a new individual response to the environment that should work as well or better. This is a good guess because the molecular intelligence is starting with what it has already learned then tries something new based upon that coded knowledge. It is not randomly mixing coding regions in an uncontrolled scrambling which would normally be fatal to it.

Regardless of population size a molecular intelligence “gene pool” still relies on single individuals to come up with unique solutions to problems such as digesting nylon, antibiotic resistance and differentiation into new cell morphologies. A gene pool is the combined memory of a "collective intelligence" or more specifically "molecular collective intelligence". By using conjugation to share information, a colony of bacteria (or other cells) can be considered to be a single multicellular organism.

Date: 2012/12/01 12:33:23, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Here is a good example I ran across in an Atheism forum, which helps show the educational problem. Notice how if they cannot understand a theory then the problem is not with them, it’s blamed on me as though it’s my fault they are way behind in science:

 
Quote
[–]zeroone 1 point 1 year ago
Can someone try to make sense of this:_http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/
|
[–]bloodredsun 2 points 1 year ago
A big bag of crazy?
|
[–]zeroone 1 point 1 year ago
Of course. But, ID arguments are usually at least somewhat coherent. Meaning, ID arguments usually involve invented/misinterpreted facts and logical fallacies. But, this is way beyond that. I can't understand a bit of it.

http://www.reddit.com/r....e_....e_place

Date: 2012/12/01 12:50:10, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 01 2012,12:36)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 01 2012,12:33)
Here is a good example I ran across in an Atheism forum, which helps show the educational problem. Notice how if they cannot understand a theory then the problem is not with them, it’s blamed on me as though it’s my fault they are way behind in science:

   
Quote
[–]zeroone 1 point 1 year ago
Can someone try to make sense of this:_http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/
|
[–]bloodredsun 2 points 1 year ago
A big bag of crazy?
|
[–]zeroone 1 point 1 year ago
Of course. But, ID arguments are usually at least somewhat coherent. Meaning, ID arguments usually involve invented/misinterpreted facts and logical fallacies. But, this is way beyond that. I can't understand a bit of it.

http://www.reddit.com/r....e_....e_place

Gary, given your extensive trolling history, what % of scientists find your VB code conjecture compelling, and what % think you're a dipshit wackaloon?

Using Bayesian confidence, what are the odds it's not actually 'the rest of the world" but is infact 'you' that's not getting it?

Instead of being taught how to learn on their own, they were conditioned to let others do all their thinking for them.

Science journals are often used as their test of what is scientific and what is not. Then when the journal does not support their conclusions they protest it.

Date: 2012/12/01 13:01:11, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
And when all else fails, it's back to philosophy, even though philosophy is NOT science.

Date: 2012/12/01 14:29:41, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 01 2012,13:26)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 01 2012,13:01)
And when all else fails, it's back to philosophy, even though philosophy is NOT science.

Yes - because emperical evidence, actual scientific output and accomplishment is "philosophy" in Gary's VB script-kiddie world.

Please explain how you determined that the Visual Basic programmers who (in this case fairly) judged the computer model and theory are  a "kiddie".

Having the ability to run (no longer supported by Microsoft) VB6 source code is now an indicator of an adult. The word "awesome" or its derivatives is from my generation (I'm 55) and I still use it on special occasions too. I'm therefore curious how you and others can so quickly come to this conclusion which seems to justify making such damning accusations.

Date: 2012/12/01 14:50:12, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 01 2012,14:18)
So now multiple scientists at multiple fora have told him 1) ID is wrong, but 2) Unlike ID, your stuff isn't even wrong, it's incoherent, we can't even make out what you're trying to say, you simply can't express yourself clearly enough for anyone to know what you're talking about.


Please explain how you know that these relatively few "scientists" who bother to protest are even qualified to judge a theory like this?

From my experience, scientists who are able to fairly judge it are OK with the theory. Those who trash theory prove to have not even read it, and in other ways show that they are too biased to be an unbiased judge.

Date: 2012/12/01 15:10:14, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (olegt @ Dec. 01 2012,14:59)
Name some names, Gary.

I know better than to make them another target of your abuse.

I only want to know why you trust the opinion of those who do not even bother to read the theory, over those who did and found it useful.

Date: 2012/12/01 15:19:31, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
See below:

Date: 2012/12/01 20:42:32, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 01 2012,18:08)
for example, you have never told us what specifically your bad-ass theory predicts.  is there anything about your theory that is falsifiable?  testable?  can you state this clearly?

Why is this not good enough for you?



http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1

Are you saying that you do not have the scientific ability to figure out what that clearly indicates? How does falsification change even a single word of it?

Date: 2012/12/01 21:32:49, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 01 2012,19:26)
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

crackpot index

I said quote "Places like this forum exist for the purpose of forever keeping me down, until I'm totally destroyed."

I did not say that this forum represents the "scientific establishment" or that there is a "conspiracy" or even that you were winning. This being "payback time" indicates that you (just another common bully) already lost, but you just don't know it yet.

Date: 2012/12/02 00:24:44, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
That issue was already settled, a year ago. Another protest by those who only join the community to cause trouble would not hurt me now. But if you feel the need to talk to yourself, then go have fun. It will be like screaming at me from a soundproof closet. I’ll not even hear you.

Date: 2012/12/02 02:42:31, Link
Author: GaryGaulin
Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 02 2012,01:25)
Gary, for the sake of discussion let's say that insects are intelligent, and that molecules are intelligent, and that atoms are intelligent. And by 'intelligent' I mean that learned people agree that 'intelligent' is the correct word to describe certain features (or actions/processes) of insects, molecules, and atoms. Now, where, how, and when did the intelligence that ended up in those things ultimately originate?


All of that was already explained in the text of the theory, now being prepared for printing. But it is not about atoms and molecules being intelligent, that's actually very absurd.

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 02 2012,01:25)
Who or what was/is the original cause (the designer-creator) of intelligence and/or anything else? What tests or research can be done to determine who or what is the ultimate original cause, or to determine whether there was/is an intentional original cause?


The theory does not require tests or research to determine who or what is the ultimate original cause. That was already found to be from the unintelligent behavior of matter, chemistry.

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 02 2012,01:25)
joe g regularly says that ID is all about origins and in a way he's right, but neither he nor anyone else has ever shown any evidence of the ultimate original cause of anything th