Your IP address is 220.127.116.11
View Author detected.
view author posts with search matches:
Retrieve source record and display it.
Your IP address is 18.104.22.168
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 'NoName%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_result: Resource id #7
|Date: 2013/03/22 07:49:27, Link|
What is most amazing to me in the ongoing saga of Laddy GaGa is that no one I am aware of has pointed out the most glaring flaw of all:
IF we accept his so-called theory, and apply it to the author of said 'theory', we immediately see that he lacks intelligence of any sort.
His behavior consists entirely of what might generously be called 'failed guesses'. Particularly given that he has recently claimed in this very thread that his model predicts that intelligent entities learn from repeated failed guesses, and that he manifestly does not so learn, we are left to conclude that Gary Gaulin is an unintelligent automaton.
|Date: 2013/03/22 08:15:32, Link|
Sorry, no. Not without a direct indication of how this graph relates to your 'theory'.
You are aware, are you not, that a computer program is not, in any sense, a theory? It may be reducible to a mathematical theorem, but it is not a theory.
It may at most purport to be a model of a theory.
Which means your 'theory' should be explicable and describable with nary a word of reference to your program.
But of course all of this is pointless -- if what you call your 'theory' is correct, it is self-refuting, for it demonstrates that its author is not intelligent. And thus intelligence [the theory, or at least the program] can be the result of strictly unintelligent processes. Contrary to what it appears the 'theory' asserts.
|Date: 2013/03/22 09:47:37, Link|
But it quite clearly hasn't 'emerged' in Laddy GaGa's case.
Which seems impossible if his 'theory' is correct.
I have to agree with the poster from the last day or two who pointed out that GaGa's work is a perfect reflection of his mental state -- he quite literally has no idea. He's wandering around in a fog of words and the memory of an inspired feeling that must have blown out most of his brain cells some while back.
Of course, the second thing that stands out about his multi-page screeds across vast swaths of the net is how very childish his approach is. We should take it seriously not because the work is valuable, but because he's invested so much of himself in it.
BFD. In school we grade on results, not level of effort.
GaGa reminds me of all the countless students who whine to their professor that they 'deserve' a better grade because they 'worked so hard'.
Sorry, not in the real world.
Well, that, and his belief that re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic is a valid response to the ship going down.
|Date: 2013/04/16 09:31:35, Link|
Tragically for you, we don't need to answer those ridiculous questions.
Why? Because you're the one who claims he has answered them, yet has found not one single person who believes that claim.
It is incumbent upon you to defend your claims.
Your ridiculous list of questions really needs some defense as well.
Why are or should we be looking for the easiest way to model a phenomenon? [Note: the phenomenon remains undefined, which is also a glaring problem for your list]
Shouldn't we be looking for accurate and productive ways to model a phenomenon, once we have clarified exactly what the phenomenon in question is?
As to your second question, it's hopeless to attempt without a clear operational definition of "intelligence" and supporting arguments and definitions reducing the ambiguity and multi-vocal potential of such a broad term.
Your third question is simply silly -- you would do better to ask how can intelligence be quantified. But that, of course, would expose your whole charade for the surrealistic charade it is.
Your fourth question falls to the same challenges as the second.
Your final question rests on a host of assumptions along with undefined terms. As it stands, it is gibberish masquerading as a claim on others.
Worst of all, of course, is the primary failure of understanding in which you persist -- no matter the failures or inadequacies, or even total absence of any 'competing' stories in challenge to your codswallop, you don't win by default.
The 'failure' of others to address what you take to be questions does not improve or solidify the codswallop you dish out.
Your nonsense remains nonsense. Trivial, useless, and most amusing of all, entirely unable to explain [remember question 5?] your own output or behavior on this and the many other sites you have polluted with your effluent.
Guess better, Gary, guess better.
|Date: 2013/04/17 09:42:31, Link|
Gary, this is blatantly false -- dishonest beyond even your abysmal "standards".
Modeling at the level of the cell is already in place, in use, and providing useful results.
I refer you to, among a number of other programs, NFSim, which permits modeling of intra-cellular activation and de-activation of cellular molecules.
It is fast, it performs well, and it works without a GUI.
I have been personally involved in crafting a front-end GUI for creating, managing, and viewing results from NFSim runs.
Papers have been published in this area.
You are a dishonest lunatic, so far out of your depth you don't even realize you're in way over your head.
|Date: 2013/04/18 07:12:02, Link|
Nice goal-post shift you dishonest jerk.
Your claim was that current computers lacked the speed and power to model any aspect of your [laughably so-called] theory.
Based on your many claims of 'molecular intelligence' [sic], you are demonstrably lying because molecular interactions within the cell can be and are modeled, accurately and with significant confirmed results, using software such as NFSim, running on Macs, PCs, and Linux systems. Multiple runs, multiple variations of concentrations, reaction rates, and at multiple levels of detail.
Are you now claiming that your ridiculous soi-disant "model", despite being "comprehensive", is not applicable to cellular events? Is there no intelligence in cellular activities? [Well, no, obviously there is not. But this damning fact is, ahem, inconvenient to your delusions of adequacy and so must be rejected with all the bluster and bravado you can gin up.]
Give it up Gary, you're once again caught in a lie.
And in a dilemma.
How does your "model" account for your own behavior?
Either it can't or you are demonstrably unintelligent on your own terms from your own "theory".
Guess better Gary. The Lulz are almost more than we can stand.
|Date: 2013/04/19 07:25:25, Link|
And so the pointed question at hand is:
If your model, your "theory", can't even do what programs such as NFSim can, of what use is it?
What is its point if it is unable to model intracellular molecular interactions that comprise significant behaviors of specific kinds of cells?
Guess better, Gary, or admit your own "theory" of intelligence is inadequate to explain your own behavior.
|Date: 2013/04/21 08:45:38, Link|
Science by music video.
Hardly impressive, not least because of Laddy GaGa's appalling lack of taste.
So I ask again, Gary -- if your program, your "theory", your "model", cannot even do what programs such as NFSim can do and are doing, of what possible use is it?
Other than laughs, of course.
|Date: 2013/04/21 12:10:06, Link|
You're an idiot.
YOU made the claim that the current generation of computers could not do the work necessary.
Yet NFSim runs just fine on Macs, PCs, and Linux systems.
What can your code do that NFSim can't, other than bring tears of hysterical laughter to the eyes of those you ask to take it seriously.
Do you ever post anything honest and truthful?
|Date: 2013/04/24 07:23:26, Link|
The "theory" requires, and/or relies on, the notion of "molecular intelligence." Various people have been asking from the beginning what the 'intelligence' qualifier/descriptor adds -- in what way is "molecular intelligence" any different from the simple laws of physics and chemistry?
Answers range from the typical silence, to implications and flat-out statements that the theory requires the model to be understood, the model requires computers, and the current generation of computers lack the power to model whatever the heck this "intelligence" is that applies from molecules to man.
When confronted with programs such as NFSim, which model intracellular molecular interactions and which run quite nicely on current home computers, he reverts to the deafening silence of the defeated.
Face it Gary, there's no 'there' where you are.
Your "model", your so-called 'theory', cannot account for nor model simple chemical reactions common within the cell. The systems that can do that, today, make no use of any sort of intelligence reflected in your gibberish.
Nor can your model account for your own behavior.
Your model fails at the large and small ends of the spectrum it claims to address.
To say nothing of the glaringly obvious hole that is its inability to model the generative aspects of biology -- your 'critters' have whatever you grace them with, and gain nothing more than [asserted] behavior. Where do new organs come from? Where do new biochemical mechanisms come from?
You can't account for lactose intolerance, blue eyes, citric acid digestion, or any of the other factors that are already handled quite nicely without recourse to your utter [and obsessively, repetitively uttered] nonsense.
Epic fail Gary. How does it feel to have wasted your life?
|Date: 2013/04/24 08:44:59, Link|
You really are a parasite, aren't you?
Unable/unwilling even to do the basic work to engage with others, yet for some reason you continue to infest this otherwise delightful place.
Give it up, Gary. You've wasted your life chasing a chimera.
Your so-called 'theory' fails at the large and small ends of the spectrum.
It is sourced by a pitiful liar.
And the behavior the liar in question cannot be explained by the "theory".
Which is it Gary? Your theory fails or your behavior is not intelligent?
Or perhaps both?
|Date: 2013/04/24 11:48:05, Link|
I've contributed substantially and significantly to a commercial operation based on NFSim. It is providing measurable value to biological investigations.
What have you done?
Impressed 3 coders on Planet Source Code?
It is to laugh.
I've written more code than you, better code than you, code still in production use.
Of this I am proud.
And I quite clearly understand biology, and modeling, considerably better than you.
Am I proud of this? Nah, an educated 8th grader could do as well or better against you.
Hell, you can't even consistently write correct English, let alone write comprehensible, meaningful, direct and unambiguous sentences.
So again, you lie about others, you lie about the computer resources needed, you demonstrate complete cluelessness, most especially in those areas where you bluster the hardest.
How does it feel to have wasted your life?
Your "theory", your much-vaunted "model" fails in the large and in the small.
Your "theory" either fails to explain your behavior, or excludes you from the universe of 'intelligent entities'.
Which is it, do you suppose?
Me, I'm going for both -- your 'theory', as written, is sufficient to conclude that you are unintelligent.
And that is, in no small part, because it almost completely lacks explanatory power. What power it has it has stolen from others, and is better expressed, better utilized, and a better fit, anywhere other than your absurd "theory."
The notion that you are somehow 'confined' here demonstrates that you are as big a loony as that silly Canadian with the threat fetish.
But then that was obvious when you failed to grasp the simple fact that you don't have a theory in any meaningful sense of the term.
Now be a good boy and leave the internet to the children, adolescents, and adults. You're not qualified to join the discussions.
|Date: 2013/04/25 07:42:58, Link|
Demonstrate how a model built with NFSim is incomplete.
Demonstrate that the model is "not even close to the real thing".
Demonstrate that a single cell is, or can be, intelligent, and in ways that cannot be captured or modeled by modeling the intracellular molecular interactions.
For bonus points, demonstrate that you were aware of Dunning-Kruger prior to be accurately diagnosed with the syndrome.
Then demonstrate in what possible ways my comments, my familiarity with NFSim, and my quite careful limitation of my objections to your drivel to the scope of what can be accomplished by NFSim and, to a lesser extent, mainstream biology, qualify me as a Dunning-Kruger candidate.
Hint: disagreement with you is not, ever, a marker for Dunning-Kruger. Nor is accurate assessment of your output as mere effluent that adds nothing whatsoever to humanity's body of knowledge. Nothing whatsoever.
Until you can do that, you are suffering delusions of adequacy. And are blustering about matters about which you remain entirely clueless.
You've done nothing but waste your effort and your life.
How does it feel to be a complete and total failure Gary?
We know you are, and we know you are at least beginning to suspect that you are.
|Date: 2013/04/25 10:52:19, Link|
Shift the goalposts much, Gary?
Clearly, your original claim was the NFSim models were incomplete *in some relevant and significant fashion that your "model" was not*.
That, of course, was the core of my counter.
Do you even know what a model is, and what is the difference between the things that may properly be left out of a model and those things which will render the model useless [for certain specified purposes] if the model leaves out?
I doubt it.
I've taught software modeling.
Trust me, you're not even an adequate beginner.
All I'm asking for is the simple courtesy to back up the claims you made in bluster.
Obviously, you cannot.
And you then attempt to use your failure as some sort of evidence that I am claiming to know things that I don't.
As always, epic fail.
You're a loony, Mr. Gaulin.
So how does it feel to have wasted your life, and have been called on it?
|Date: 2013/04/25 10:58:36, Link|
Sorry, that job is one you owe us, and you continue to avoid.
NOTHING you have posted, here or elsewhere, demonstrates that you have the slightest clue what scientists, as opposed to pitiful poseurs such as yourself, are actually up to.
What you have managed to demonstrate, quite conclusively, is that you are not a scientist, that you are not, in any meaningful fashion, studying "cellular intelligence", or that the phrases "cellular intelligence" and "molecular intelligence" have any non-colloquial, scientifically useful, meaning.
Tell me Gary, were even aware of the existence of NFSim before I raised the point of its utility, in counter to your ridiculous claim that today's computers lack the power needed to do useful work in biological modeling?
Somehow, I doubt it.
Show us how an NFSim model fails to model everything useful and material to the function of the aspect of intra-cellular molecular behavior. Show us where the "intelligence", in your contrived and useless verbiage, exists, or has been left out.
Otherwise, your entire enterprise with respect to molecular "intelligence" is shown to be a fraud.
|Date: 2013/04/25 11:02:44, Link|
So are you now claiming that your claim does not cover NFSim?
Do you even know what NFSim is, how it's used, and why it is important?
Have you forgotten why it was raised in this thread?
Your claim was quite clear in asserting that my work with NFSim, and, more importantly, the work of scientists who use NFSim, was based on and or resulted in models that were incomplete, and that this incompleteness was relevant.
Clearly, your objection either includes NFSim's models or it does not. If it does, then equally clearly, my demand for demonstration of precisely what is inadequate about these models, and how your soi-disant model does better, is warranted.
|Date: 2013/04/25 11:04:30, Link|
By the way, it is now clear we can add "ad hominem fallacy" to the list of logical fallacies Gary fails to grasp.
Hardly surprising. Were he a man without arms, his reach would still exceed his grasp.
How does it feel to have wasted your life, Gary? And to have been called on it, on virtually every site you have visited?
Sucks to be you.
|Date: 2013/04/25 13:14:02, Link|
And what lessons have YOU learned Gary?
Surely it has sunken in by now that no one is impressed by your ability to find youtube videos and post links to them.
So regardless of what Alice learned, whether in chains or not, the question remains -- what have YOU learned?
The answer appears be 'bugger all', but you could contribute to changing that appearance if you chose -- and were able.
|Date: 2013/04/26 07:17:23, Link|
Paranoid schizophrenic much, Gary?
There's a much simpler, and far more likely to be true, explanation for your situation:
You're an ignorant loser who's wasted his entire life pursuing a chimera.
Note well that this is a description, not the ad hominem logical fallacy with which you have recently become obsessed.
How does it feel to have wasted your whole life?
How does it feel to have been called on it on virtually every site where you have expressed your effluent?
If you had the programming skills you pretend to, you could find work.
If you had the modeling skills you pretend to, you could find work.
Tragically, there is little to no work for obsessive-compulsives with dishonesty issues, logorrhea combined with a serious case of incoherence, and a total lack of self-awareness.
I think it would be appropriate, to say nothing of hysterically funny, were we to set up a foundation to collect your 'greatest hits' as a memorial to the awesome power of human stupidity unleashed.
But trust me on this, if nothing else. No one at all takes you or your silly "theory" seriously enough to contribute even a nickel to suppressing it. There's nothing there to suppress, which everyone has been telling you for free [modulo the cost to you of an internet connection].
No one takes your or your awesome lack of ability seriously enough to contribute even a penny to prevent you from acquiring funding. Your awesome skills in that regard, and that regard only, have been as close to demonstrating even minimal competence that you have displayed.
|Date: 2013/04/26 09:21:24, Link|
But Gary, compensation is for value received, not "work done." Nobody asked you to do the work, nobody wanted the work, manifestly the work has no value.
Thus, in the purest economic sense, you've already been compensated for all of your time and effort.
$0.00 seems about right.
That you object to how tax monies were collected and/or spent says nothing at all about what you are owed, nor about any sort of personal attack on you and your work.
What has been done is, manifestly, not illegal, for it has survived legal challenge.
Your whining about it certainly doesn't improve any case that might be made, nor does it, nor should it, rise to the level of something the law ought to notice.
You are free to spend your time as you choose.
You chose to waste your life on artifacts of zero value.
Tough. It sucks to be you. And no one is responsible for that but you. No one is to blame for that but you.
If you are being 'literally destroyed' by anything, it's by the success and payoff of what is funded. To the best of our knowledge, based entirely on what you have output here and many other places, you haven't even risen to a level where you or your output would or could be noticed by anyone with any sort of need or interest in suppressing, silencing, or destroying it or its producer(s).
You've failed and are suffering the well-deserved consequences.
The evidence is clear and obvious to all, thanks in large measure to your posting your effluent in so many places around the web. None of which garnered any positive acclaim for the content of your 'theory'. That a whole 3 readers on Planet Source Code gave your code a positive rating is so meaningless you should be embarrassed.
Your claims to 'science', to possession of a 'theory', are roundly scorned and scoffed at, on the merits of your own presentations and your own inability to communicate.
Seek medical attention. It's your last best hope to escape the madness which consumes you.
|Date: 2013/04/26 09:55:49, Link|
Yes, it is certainly a ridiculous set of demands that include defending your own honesty, your own work, your own words.
Why should anyone have to put up with that?
The benefits, the sheer genius, of the
Which is why this thread is now approaching 150 pages, right?
You're a loon Gary.
You've wasted your entire life.
|Date: 2013/04/26 14:12:06, Link|
To put it bluntly, bullshit.
All you've proved is that
a) you can't write for shit -- lower than an 8th grade level
b) you are clueless about what science is and/or how it works
c) you are persistently delusional
d) you are entirely unwilling and unable to respond to valid questions and criticisms of the drivel you've spewed out
e) you have less than no idea how to do document management, revision histories, or update tracking.
Well, and that you've wasted your entire life.
You pathetic loser.
It isn't about religion. It isn't about state education laws.
You wouldn't recognize 'intelligence related sciences' [a virtually meaningless phrase as constructed and used by you] if they were able to get a death grip on either of your two brain cells.
It would be fairly simple for an ordinarily intelligent person who had some actual idea to rectify the situation. You could, for example, demonstrate the grounding of 'molecular intelligence' and show how it is, or is not, distinct from the laws of physics and chemistry. There are many routes by which this could be attempted, including building a model in NFSim and a contrasting model that included whatever the heck it is that you consider 'molecular intelligence' and then show and explain how and why they differ, and why that difference matters.
Tragically, you are too big a loser, too stupid an entity, to even grasp that this is a task that lies fully on your shoulders, that it is implied by your own, ahem, notions, and that failure to step up to this, as to all other challenges raised, warrants all the "ill treatment" accorded you and your effluent.
But instead, I think you should mortgage your house (again, if necessary), or sell blood, or otherwise acquire the funds to hire some ace legal mind (Barry Arrington in CO comes to mind) and embark on the quest to have the legal system rectify the many crimes committed against you and your ilk.
The LULz would be epic.
But in the end, all you would discover, as you crash and burn, is that there isn't anyone who's been exposed to you who would even piss on the burning wreckage of your life, your dreams, and your "theory."
Run to get a can of gas, they might, but that would be it.
|Date: 2013/04/27 07:31:26, Link|
Gary, it has been shown repeatedly, and in detail, exactly why it is that your nonsense does not rise to the level of hypothesis, let alone theory.
That you fail to comprehend is hardly a good sign.
That you cannot remember past the science LOL posted in a very late attempt to connect you back to something like the real world is worse.
You aspire to stand on the necks of giants before you've even managed velcro fastened shoes.
Or, in terms of your own theory of 'intelligent cause':
"guess better, Gary."
|Date: 2013/04/29 08:23:28, Link|
Reality check, again Gary -- "asserted" is not at all the same as "explained".
You have asserted, with your usual bluster and ragged near-incoherence, that we are not able to have relevant opinions on your work [in which case, why have you been flogging it here and elsewhere in search of input?] but you have never explained the basis for that assertion.
By inference, we may conclude that the sole basis is that you don't like being criticized.
It remains an unalterable fact that your own theory fails, epically, in not being able to account for your own behavior.
Guess better, Gary, guess better.
|Date: 2013/04/29 09:00:12, Link|
NO Gary. You could not possibly be more wrong on this core point.
NO ONE is obligated to provide a better explanation than the gibberish you have uttered. Yes, it would be nice it there were one, at least insofar as you have identified areas wherein the current best answer is "we don't (yet) know."
But there is nothing in your work that warrants treating it as the default position, to be assumed to be true until and unless a better explanation is forthcoming.
For those few cases, if any, where you have identified a phenomena in need of explanation not currently possessed, you have failed, failed utterly and completely, to provide an explanation.
And the rest (the vast majority) of the issues you raise are side-effects of your own mental illness -- your own self-binding to a construct that must have appeared to you in the early 70's in a bad acid trip.
I'm still waiting, and I'm not alone in this, to hear any sort of sensible explication of just what "molecular intelligence" is and how it differs from or extends the laws of physics and chemistry.
I'm still waiting, and I'm not alone in this, to hear why you believe that "self learning" is necessary for molecules to be able to reproduce with less than perfect fidelity. That is, why "self learning" is necessary to evolution.
Pathetic, Gary, that you want to pretend that your bullshit is some sort of default that must stand until someone, anyone, can provide an improved answer -- still less, an answer that you are willing to acknowledge as 'improved'.
Learn some biology. Guess better.
Or show that your "theory" can account for something more than the laws of physics and chemistry at the intra-cellular level of molecular interactions.
And then show how your theory can account for your own behavior on the web over the last couple of years.
As nearly as anybody can tell, it cannot accomplish either of those tasks.
YOU are the one in need of better explanations, Gary.
Your "theory" isn't it. That case has been solidly proven already.
|Date: 2013/04/29 13:38:30, Link|
I think we can quite safely say that Gary's "theory" adds nothing to our understanding of any phenomena.
He has asserted, but not demonstrated, otherwise. But we understand bluster well enough.
We also understand that Gary's "theory" explains nothing about molecules that isn't already explained by physics and chemistry.
Also that Gary's "theory" explains nothing about Gary's own behavior. Leaving us with our choice of conclusions:
A) Gary's "theory" is worthless in that it does not do what it proclaims it does
B) Gary is not an example of "intelligence", even in the highly special sense of Gary's "theory"
C) Both of the above.
|Date: 2013/04/30 08:47:21, Link|
You don't have a theory.
Your fascination with music and posting links to music videos on youtube betray the probable origins of your delusions.
Just how much bad acid did you take? And for how long?
BTW, you still need to respond in some fashion to the universal insistence that it is your job to provide answers to the questions raised in challenge to your "theory". That no one else has supplied an answer that you, or unknown others, judge superior is irrelevant, entirely irrelevant, to whether or not your "theory" adds anything to the current body of human knowledge.
It has been universally acknowledged that it does not.
IF your "theory" had the merits you claim for it, you could demonstrate what more than the laws of physics and chemistry are at play, and where, in what you call "molecular intelligence." You haven't, you won't, because you can't.
IF your "theory" had the merits you claim for it, you could use it to explain, in the terms of the theory, your own behavior on this and countless other boards/blogs on line. You haven't, you won't, because you can't.
"Molecular intelligence" is a delusion you have whipped up out of your own imagination.
By the terms of your "theory", you are not an "intelligent cause".
Sucks to be you. How does it feel to have wasted your whole life? Or worse than wasted -- Cheech and Chong made quite a lot of money out of being wasted. You can't even manage that.
|Date: 2013/05/01 09:48:34, Link|
Nor does the computer care whether or to what extent the "idea's logic" is applicable in or to the real physical world.
Countless pieces of software allow 'what if' scenario playing, varying gravity, friction, etc. Computer models let us do things real physics and chemistry do not.
Which is a small part of why your absurd fascination with your software is so very wrong-headed.
You don't have an idea that applies to the real-world.
If you did, you could demonstrate "molecular intelligence", which appears to be your own fantasy notion with zero relevance to physics, chemistry, or biology.
Worse, if it did have applicability to the real world, you could use your "idea", your "theory", to explain your own behavior.
You can't, you won't, because it doesn't. Never has, never will.
|Date: 2013/05/03 06:57:12, Link|
Well, you can say it, but that doesn't make it true.
It has been shown, quite clearly, that your model fails at the molecular level and at the level of at least one human being -- yourself.
You are hopelessly unable to demonstrate anything that might qualify as "molecular intelligence"; most particularly you are unable to show in any way why or how "molecular intelligence" differs from the laws of chemistry and physics.
There is no there, there in the pseudo-concept "molecular intelligence."
You are equally pathetically unable to explain or demonstrate anything in your own behavior, particularly your conduct on the web, that is explained by or could be explainable by your notion, masquerading as a theory.
Thus, there are no positive self-similarities across the range you identify. Absence of positive self-similarities across multiple scales is not fractal. The presence of self-similarities is one of the diagnostic conditions for the determination of the presence of fractals.
Epic fail, yet again, Gary.
|Date: 2013/05/07 12:37:10, Link|
Gee, project much?
Your "model" has already been falsified at the two extreme points on the range you specify for it -- 'molecular intelligence' and human intelligence.
Your "model" can neither demonstrate the existence nor the need for anything properly called "intelligence" at the molecular level. Physics and chemistry quite adequately manage to do their job and explain 100% of what needs explaining at that level.
Nor can your "model" explain that case of "intelligent cause" known as human behavior. In fact, it fails spectacularly when applied to such [allegedly] 'intelligent causes' as yourself.
That you find verbiage that resonates with your delusions is hardly support for the correctness of your views. It is, rather, confirmation that you have delusions bouncing around in that vast echoey space where genuine 'intelligent causes' keep their brains.
|Date: 2013/05/07 13:47:20, Link|
You mean the details you keep failing to provide?
Feel free to provide the required information any time.
Your model is garbage, it has neither explanatory nor predictive power. It's not even up to the level of science fiction represented by Scientology.
Step up to the challenges, Gary. Show us what and where "molecular intelligence" exists. Explain how the laws of chemistry and physics are inadequate to explain molecular behavior.
Even easier, were you to actually have a model that does what you claim, explain how your so-called model accounts for your own behavior.
You won't because you can't because it doesn't.
This has become abundantly clear. A quality your prose is desperately in need of.
|Date: 2013/05/07 14:24:14, Link|
You really don't understand, do you?
You are such a hopeless dumbfuck pathetic little pseudo-intellectual.
You have to prove, or at least demonstrate, that your so-called theory, which is, in no accepted sense an actual theory, can do what you claim it can.
You continue to evade and avoid that responsibility.
And you do so because that represents the summa of your capabilities -- evasion of responsibility.
Your "model" is irrelevant to evolution, it is to all intents and purposes irrelevant to biology, and it sure as shit is irrelevant to chemistry and biochemistry.
Nor does it offer anything to psychology.
Your efforts are doomed by your own hopeless buffoonery. The one act at which you are moderately skilled.
No one needs to prove you are wrong. You need to prove you are right.
Guess better, Gary.
|Date: 2013/05/08 06:36:39, Link|
You have found a way to express the entirety of your thought, succinctly, graphically, and with full exposure of content!
Keep posting this instead of your "model" or your spurious defenses and you might achieve something.
|Date: 2013/05/08 14:08:08, Link|
Complete and utter bullshit, Gary, and you know it.
Do you dispute any of the parts you quoted?
Not recognizably so.
Do you routinely use deceptive tactics to disqualify all theories other than your own, except insofar as you can pretend to understand them well enough to allege that they support or are "incorporated" in your own?
Constantly, indeed, without fail.
Was there any trace of an ideology or pseudoscience in the parts you quoted?
Is any aspect of biological evolution based on and extended from the work of Charles Darwin "not science"?
Is any of it illegal to teach in (American) public school classrooms, specifically as science?
Most emphatically not.
Are you off your meds again (still)?
Guess better, Gary. Your own "theory" cannot explain your behavior as represented in your posts over the last 150+ pages.
You're not only a loon, not only a failure, you're a self-deluding poseur.
|Date: 2013/05/08 16:30:18, Link|
Way to represent the points actually made by Wesley and others.
It appears your reading comprehension is on a par with your writing skills -- all but non-existent.
To point out that particular theories in biology are neither supported by nor reflected in your effluent hardly counts as asserting that those ideas are owned by some holy bovine.
But do feel free to show that I'm wrong on this -- show me where and how, specifically, your "model" accounts for genetic drift.
Where's the intelligence, Gary?
|Date: 2013/05/09 11:13:27, Link|
No, it's not.
Not important, not interesting, not even wrong.
It is not necessary for anyone to argue against what you call "the theory itself" given that you are unable to successfully argue for it.
YOU are the one who is failing here, no one else.
It is not a theory, this has been repeatedly demonstrated on multiple sites where you have posted your effluent.
It is not convincingly argued for, as witness your almost stunning lack of supporters. A small handful of 'script kiddies' and a meaningless coding award to not make up support for your "theory".
Guess better, Gary -- isn't that what your theory says you should do in the face of repeated failure?
|Date: 2013/05/12 11:42:00, Link|
Your "model" is self-discrediting.
You do not have a theory, therefore your model cannot be said to be based on a theory.
Your model is not capable of fulfilling on the claims you have made for it -- it cannot explain whatever it is you mean by "molecular intelligence" in ways that extend or expand physics and chemistry.
Nor can it account for your own behavior, on the highly generous assumption that you are an 'intelligent cause'.
Guess better, Gary.
|Date: 2013/05/12 11:48:57, Link|
It is interesting that Gary now accuses others of quote-mining his work.
As I noted many pages back, one of Gary's many flaws, one of his many overdeveloped inadequacies, is his total botch of document management.
Given that Gary updates his "magnum opus", it is impossible for anyone who quotes portions of that effluent to avoid the appearance of quote-mining.
Grab a free clue, Gary, it is not the responsibility of those who suffer through your impenetrable prose to document the moment at which they capture particular nuggets of effluent for comment or ridicule. Yet unless that is done, you can easily go change what you have written and voila, all track is lost. How can anyone judge whether or not you've been quote-mined when your effluent is no more stable than you are?
It is apparently not sufficient for your inadequacies to evidence themselves in your pseudo-thoughts and your output, it is now apparent that you manage your structures such that no one can ever be sure with which version of your nonsense they are dealing, or whether you will modify it later with no sign of having done so.
You are one heck of an inept twat Gary -- you fail epically, and you meta-fail epically.
Guess better, Gary, or your theory will judge you not to be an 'intelligent cause'.
Like all the rest of us concluded long long ago.
|Date: 2013/05/12 11:53:07, Link|
Totally irrelevant to the principled disagreement at hand -- you have claimed to have incorporated neural networks in your model and your code.
Evidence demonstrates that this is not true.
That you now wish to argue that neural networks are not necessary merely shows you have no shame -- you will say anything 'sciencey' in a desperate attempt to be taken seriously, yet drop any claim other than your overarching 'look at me, I've done significant stuff' meta-claim, at any point on which you are challenged.
The schtick is getting very old. And it is entirely transparent, you've been called on this before.
|Date: 2013/05/12 12:36:32, Link|
You really don't get it, do you?
I don't have to prove anything, least of all to you. It is doubtful you could comprehend a proof, but that's irrelevant.
The argument isn't about whether or not some undefined "it" is simple or not.
The argument is about whether or not your so-called model actually contains neural networks.
Careful examination of the code shows it does not.
Thus, you lie.
And you compound your dishonesty by trying to pretend that the argument is about whether or not 'it' is simple to model without neural networks.
Wesley has presented a fair bit of information on this topic, and has lately focused on pointing out things at the simple end of the spectrum.
And now you are trying to bluster and pretend that 'simple' is what you were about all along. Simple-minded, I think we'd all grant.
But I doubt anyone here would grant that the argument is over simplicity/complexity. The most recent argument is about whether or not you were telling the truth when you spoke of incorporating neural networks.
Clearly, you were not speaking truth.
And based on that, we can easily infer that nothing you have said is true -- particularly given your extreme penchant for misunderstanding objections raised against your twaddle, and your hyper-extreme penchant for attempting to divert the subject down any old rabbit hole to distract from how badly you have been disproved on every topic you have attempted to raise.
Give it up, Gary.
Your own "model", insofar as it has any value, shows you aren't an 'intelligent cause'. You might look into repairing that little defect before going on much further.
To repeat -- the only evidence necessary is evidence showing that you have lied about the content and implementation of your model. And this entire thread stands as a monument containing that evidence.
|Date: 2013/05/13 06:53:47, Link|
And you'd be even better off staying on your meds.
Your repetitive behavior of insisting that "you're done responding to nut cases" and variations thereon certainly strengthen the common view that you are a loon.
But of course you'd be best off to actually develop a theory and a model and present them in standard basic coherent English. We all note that despite your delusions of adequacy at English, you are miserably bad at it.
And your "skill" at English vastly exceeds your "skill" at science.
|Date: 2013/05/13 12:47:22, Link|
You're a bitter petulant little man, Gary.
And with no one to blame but yourself.
How does it feel to have wasted your life?
Your software will never amount to anything other than a momentary amusement for those who know much of anything about any of the subjects involved.
But do keep up the whining -- it adds to your amusement quotient.
|Date: 2013/05/13 15:41:56, Link|
Frankly, the very best Gary could achieve would be to take up a new hobby.
I suggest collecting.
Specifically, he should sit in a corner and collect dust.
It is the only thing he is qualified to do -- at least until he takes up decomposing.
|Date: 2013/05/15 08:13:36, Link|
You most certainly were talking about one model.
You may wish to pretend that weren't so, and perhaps in the fetid fever-swamp of your "mind", you can get away with rewriting the past to fit your current needs.
Real life doesn't work that way. Anyone who has followed this absurdist thread realizes quite clearly that your claim above is dishonest.
This entire distraction has been over whether or not your model included a Trehub model and whether or not it included a neural net -- both of which you have claimed.
Wesley has been tireless in pointing out that this is not and cannot be the case, based on your own arguments and disconnected ramblings.
YOU are the one who continues to desperately shift the subject away from the specifics of some more-or-less current version of your effluent into questions of what else you have or haven't done, what others may or may not have done, and whether or not there is any sort of relevant relationship between those things.
None of us much care about that -- whether or not your head resonates with the ideas expressed by others, whether or not others are making progress in pursuit of scientific investigation of intelligence is entirely irrelevant to the undoubtable fact that you are not making any such progress.
And now you drag your petty scuffle with the FCC into this? As if running a pirate radio station had anything substantive to do with AIs or investigations thereof?
Good grief you're a loon!
Stop lying Gary. Guess better Gary.
Learn to communicate. Defend your ideas on their merits, if they have any [which by and large they do not].
And answer the perennial questions -- what does "molecular intelligence" mean above and beyond the laws of physics and chemistry? Where and when and how does it apply, how can it be detected, what does its detection mean, what does lack of detection mean?
And how is it that your own model fails so spectacularly to explain your own behavior?
Guess better, Gary. Or is it a RAM problem?
|Date: 2013/05/15 11:57:46, Link|
Ah, but he does it with such astonishing condescension.
And the 'more sciencier than thou' attitude of "we're all just scientists here, I'm happy to see that you understand this."
Let me be very clear, Gary -- your work is worthless, it will have no impact or effect, it will not be taught in science classes (except, perhaps, as an example of going very wrong with absolute confidence).
You've wasted your life, and you expend vast amounts of energy demonstrating that far and wide across the internet.
But you've still wasted your life.
|Date: 2013/05/15 13:21:14, Link|
Pity, then, that you don't have a theory.
Or anything even close to a theory.
|Date: 2013/05/16 07:19:01, Link|
Gary, you appear to be almost entirely unfamiliar with the term 'gig'.
Particularly as used in the current conversation, a 'gig' is a paying job, a paid presence.
I dare say no one is paying you to infest the various websites you've smeared your effluent all over nor would I be willing to believe that you are paid, in any form, for your egregious nonsense masquerading as a theory.
Were you to be paid for your "theory", why all the whining about suing people for all the effort you put in without recompense?
Poor Gary, 'meaning' is something that other people are expected to provide -- he just emits words.
|Date: 2013/05/16 08:58:28, Link|
He does seem to be a bit, ahem, slow, on the uptake, does he not?
Gary G, as likely to take on a point as a Hydrogen atom to take on a 4th electron in a stable orbital.
|Date: 2013/05/16 14:22:29, Link|
Surely Gary and his "theory" of "molecular intelligence" should be able to clarify this, yes?
I mean, given how high and deep he insists his "theory" reaches, such a paltry issue should be trivial for him to address, and address correctly.
We're waiting, Gary.
|Date: 2013/05/17 06:58:32, Link|
OK, so "molecular intelligence" is a lie -- all you have, all you need, and the foundational science you misappropriate is physics and chemistry.
Glad we finally cleared that up. There is no such thing as "molecular intelligence", there's only physics and chemistry.
Wow, you're impressive Gary. Almost 200 pages of condescension, absurdity, and hand-waving before you pull the rug out from under one of your fundamental assertions.
At this rate, we'll be up in the thousands, if not tens of thousands, of pages before you begin to glimpse how badly wrong you've gotten everything else.
I'll give you this -- when you waste your life, you waste it in its entirety, all the way to the bitter end.
|Date: 2013/05/17 09:51:19, Link|
But you've already admitted that "molecular intelligence" is nothing more, nothing other, than the laws of physics and chemistry.
"Four requirements for intelligence"? Says who?
You are hardly a source to which one would look for any information on intelligence, given that you display none. Particularly on the grounds of what we may laughingly call your 'theory', you do not display intelligent behavior.
As to the claim that you've already done something in your 'theory', need we point out yet again that you do not have a theory? Apparently, we do.
Have you demonstrated anything in that load of codswallop you refer to, mistakenly, as a 'theory'?
Nothing of value, merely a very limited "learning process" of essentially no relevance to biology whatsoever.
You might have had something had you come along with this prior to the Roomba and its ilk, but as it stands today, you have nothing new, nothing interesting, and no faintest idea how to proceed.
|Date: 2013/05/18 09:39:44, Link|
As has already been pointed out, a servo is not a circuit.
But I'm very curious as to just why you think dismissing something as 'just a circuit' ought to have any strength, or any bearing, on your absurd claims.
Is not your model based on circuits?
Have you not spent 10s of pages arguing about whether or not certain types of circuit are or are not modeled by your "theory"?
If these are true, and surely they are, then how does dismissing "just a circuit" serve to attack the claims being made?
Answer: it doesn't, of course. It is part and parcel of your entire approach to refuse to even recognize, let alone deal with, substantive counter-claims to your "theory" even (or is it especially?) when phrased on the arcane babble of your tortured prose.
Hope to it little man -- deal with the issue raised. How is an auto-focus camera not an example of intelligence as you work with the term in your "theory"?
Or again, in the terms of your theory, guess better, Gary. We're beginning to suspect you do not count as an 'intelligent agent' under the terms of your own "theory".
|Date: 2013/05/19 07:46:20, Link|
OK, so you're going to insist a servo is a circuit.
The core of the question remains -- how does the presence of a circuit, which appears to implement all the requirements you give for 'intelligence', lead to rejecting the conclusion of 'intelligence' in the system using said circuit?
WHY is an Auto-Focus camera not an example of 'intelligence' as you use the term in your "theory"?
|Date: 2013/05/20 07:27:03, Link|
Can't handle it, huh?
Imagine our surprise.
Look, a fine level of detail was provided by Nomad, who matched up every "detail" of your "theory" with specifics from the behavior of an auto-focus system.
You were challenged to explain whether, on grounds of your "theory", it was appropriate therefore to call an auto-focus system "intelligent".
And it appears you are unable to do so.
You bailed with a hand-waving claim that it couldn't match your theory because an auto-focus system uses a circuit, specifically a servo.
We are justified in dismissing your effluent on this basis alone, to say nothing of all the many other failures you've generated.
Guess better, Gary, your "theory" would judge you to be not an 'intelligent cause' or 'intelligent agent'.
You've been running from the specificity provided and the challenge to your codswallop that it represents.
You're a fine one to talk about "rigor", let along complain that those who have been challenging you on your nonsense here and on other sites are somehow not used to the fact that "Science requires more rigor".
Do we need to repeat, yet again, that you are not doing science and that you do not, most emphatically not, have a theory?
|Date: 2013/05/20 09:21:00, Link|
How can it be a disgrace to ourselves when it has been accurate and to the point?
You love to condescend to others, you do everything you can to adopt the stance of 'spokesperson for science', yet you continue to demonstrate that you haven't the faintest clue what science (or Science) actually is, nor how it is done.
You have no theory.
Take any standard definition or description of the term from science and what you have will not fit. You are lacking the fundamental requisites of any theory whatsoever.
You have no authority to speak authoritatively on science, theory, or intelligence. You are only marginally coherent at best, and demonstrably clueless about the topics on which you pontificate.
What you are owed is not condescension but deep and abiding contempt. Insofar as you warrant any attention at all.
Guess better, Gary -- your "theory" suggests that you are not intelligent nor are you and 'intelligent cause'. A text-book case of 'stopped clock syndrome.'
|Date: 2013/05/20 09:23:43, Link|
Note, too, that we are not discussing 'intentions' -- we'll add that to the list of words you either fail to comprehend or fail to use correctly.
Describing, accurately I might add, your effluent as 'not a theory' is in no sense a statement of intention.
Asking if you need to have that repeated to you is, likewise, not a statement of intention.
|Date: 2013/05/21 09:16:56, Link|
You are either the most clueless git on the planet, or are exposing entire new strata of dishonesty.
I'm going for the latter.
Were you not the one who professed to have a 'theory [sic] of intelligence' that applied across all levels?
Were you not the one who laid out the requisites for the existence of (what you call) intelligence?
Has Nomad not taken your criteria and applied them to an area that you do not consider intelligent, and yet obviously should based on your 'across all levels' "theory"?
Your analogy, therefore, ought to be more along the lines of "If apes are evolving then why aren't humans?", which leads to the "they are you dumbfuck moron" response that all of your effluent deserves.
|Date: 2013/05/22 07:45:07, Link|
Here's where you go wrong, Gary. Spectacularly wrong:
You have a hidden premise in place, a hidden premise that I suspect everyone but you would reject as ludicrous.
That premise being that you are accurately reflecting the fullness of meaning and intent in the work of those you reference. You aren't.
Wesley, among others, has demonstrated that you abuse the work of those you claim as inspiration, that you lack any sort of deep or meaningful understanding, and that you are unqualified to simply adopt the mantle of respect they and their work have earned.
Therefore, all that is required of us is to demonstrate that you and your work are loony -- which we have done at great length, here and elsewhere.
There is no sense in which we are arguing that 'the most respected experts in the field don't know what they're talking about' -- we are arguing that you don't know what you're talking about.
You are the only one who keeps dragging in these personages, and, btw, dragging their names and their work through the mud of your conceptual ineptitude.
And this is why you deserve deep and abiding contempt.
You are a thief (attempted thief) of the work of others, which you misunderstand and misrepresent, you are a thief of the respect earned by others as if it were not incumbent upon you to earn respect for yourself and your own work.
Your work is garbage, hardly fit for toilet paper for use by Trehub and others. You give no evidence that you are deserving of any respect whatsoever. One wonders if you even dress yourself, or merely posture that complaints about your nudity are unwarranted criticism of the naturist movement, God's wisdom as demonstrated by Adam and Eve in the garden, and the perfection of your parents in producing such a specimen as yourself.
Guess better, Gary -- as per your own theory, which currently judges your behavior to be unintelligent.
|Date: 2013/05/23 07:11:56, Link|
Gary, Gary, Gary, you pretentious whining loon.
Whatever model you want to be taken seriously must be defended on the merits of the model. NOT on the mendacious crap you've been dishing out.
Defended by the modeler, directly, rather than by reference to those whose work the modeler barely begins to comprehend. (Do you move your lips when you look at pictures?)
Try addressing Nomad's questions. Try demonstrating that you have an actual bona fide theory rather than codswallop.
Try being coherent.
Try anything other than what you've been up to, because quite clearly what you've been up to isn't working. In terms of your model, all you've got are bad guesses. Why is that?
|Date: 2013/05/23 12:15:10, Link|
And yet, when Nomad pointed out that a camera's auto-focus fit nicely within the space circumscribed by your "4 criteria", your first dismissal focused on speed, nothing else.
Consistency is something that happens to other people, huh, Gary?
And you keep insisting that unless someone can present a model that you judge to be better than yours, you win by default.
The problem is not that your "theory" is inadequate, it is that a) it is not a theory and b) it doesn't even rise the level of error -- it is not even wrong. It is incoherent and entirely useless for showing how intelligence works.
No one is required to provide a replacement for your theory once they have shown that it is irrelevant, silly, and overall, nothing but meaningless gabble.
And that has been shown repeatedly.
Sucks to be you, huh?
|Date: 2013/05/25 15:08:34, Link|
The only one doing any 'ignoring' is you, Gary.
Particularly, you are ignoring the fact that you have no theory.
You have no useful or meaningful definition of 'intelligence'.
You have no concept of consciousness to couple to or decouple from your twaddle about 'intelligence' and 'intelligent cause'.
You have no concept, no faintest clue, about abstraction nor any means to incorporate that concept into your effluent.
You are ignoring, furiously, Nomad's perfectly reasonable questions about the proper application of your 4 criteria which must be met, according to your document, for there to be an 'intelligent agent'. This is particularly troubling because a) Nomad's results appear to be perfectly proper applications of the criteria and b) you, as creator of the criteria, remain silent in the face of an undesired outcome from Nomad's application.
We all know you're a crank, at best. Your work is a waste of time, money, and electrons. You've wasted your life.
The basic outline of your theory suggests that you yourself do not qualify as an 'intelligent agent' -- which does seem to be correct.
Guess better, Gary.
Or better yet, just stop.
|Date: 2013/05/26 07:08:28, Link|
Not really responsive, Gary.
Regardless of your own emotional investment in your effluent, you have neither theory nor hypotheses.
Insisting that you do, you do, you really really do, while doing nothing else at all to support the claims merely reinforces everyone's view of you as a petulant whiner whose output is inevitably content-free.
You say theories are used. OK, you've been called on that repeatedly -- who is using your "theory"?
No one, that's who.
It is hardly surprising that you make the mistakes you do -- a quick look at the early portions of your tiresome screed shows that you think 'natural selection' is subjective and unverifiable/unfalsifiable. Nothing could be further from the truth.
You insist we must falsify your "hypothesis". Leaving aside the inconvenient fact that you don't have a hypothesis, your insistence that there is a need for the wibble you provide is falsified by how very well science is doing without it. There are no grounds for introducing your specious notions -- Occam's razor, dear boy. Learn it and use it.
You have admitted that "molecular intelligence" is nothing more than the laws of physics and chemistry.
And that's all we need to get from atoms to molecules to DNA and random mutations. That plus differential reproductive success is all we need to have biology.
There's no room for your absurd "theory" because it has no unexplained facts to explain.
Despite its plethora of undefined terms and disconnected pseudo-concepts.
|Date: 2013/05/26 13:43:47, Link|
Kindly identify a single feature or class of features that require your "hypothesis."
I dare to say you cannot find a single one outside of the class of features that track back to acts of consciousness.
Your "theory" does not explain your hypothesis.
Plus, and worse, it is riddled with errors of fact and errors of personal interpretation.
Both are neatly encapsulated in your smug dismissal of "natural selection" as "subjective."
But were your "theory" to be found to be correct, it would disprove itself -- because you (more precisely, your actions) do not conform to its criteria or structures and yet you would have us believe you are an 'intelligent agent' whose product is said "theory."
What a dilemma.
Guess better, Gary.
|Date: 2013/05/26 16:24:19, Link|
Is there some reason you can't answer directly, here?
Obviously, there is -- you want your output confined solely to a document that you control and change frequently.
No trace of previous versions, no commitment to formerly positions, nothing to stake you out on any specifics.
The one who posts here who knows nothing is you.
I repeat the question -- what features of the universe and living things are best explained by an 'intelligent cause' and are not also products of consciousness?
I phrase it in terms of 'products of consciousness' because I do not care to eliminate non-human intelligences, such as dogs, dolphins, etc. I do wish to eliminate all chemical reactions as such, all products of human agency, and so on.
What's left? Only the area you claim for your "theory". It appears to be, at best, a point, not a circle.
Anyone who claims that 'natural selection' is subjective is a loonie, and that claim is one of the lead-off items in your tiresome effluent. It is very difficult to find reason to take any of your output seriously after seeing you make that claim.
But you post here, so defend here.
Or shut up.
|Date: 2013/05/27 07:06:39, Link|
Listen you self-important blithering idiot --
no one is arguing that it is impossible for there to be a 'theory of intelligent design'.
What we are arguing is that you don't have one.
You won't every have one.
And you won't ever begin to understand why that is so.
Your pompous pretentiousness gets in your way.
You are the warthog claiming the right to be a beauty queen in the court of hummingbirds. It doesn't matter how beautiful or brilliant you think your output is, it is not what you proclaim it to be.
|Date: 2013/05/27 07:08:27, Link|
|Date: 2013/05/27 07:14:43, Link|
We can see the truth of this in Gary's refusal not merely to use a document versioning system for his effluent but in his inability to understand why it might matter.
How many versions of his document has he referenced as 'authoritative' over the last couple of years? Dozens, at least. How many changes has he made along the way? Dozens, at least, possibly hundreds.
It is impossible to tell because Gary no more manages his documents then he does his meds.
And that alone is sufficient to declare him sleazy and worse.
Gary, do you even comprehend why scientists keep (or kept) notes in bound notebooks, in ink, and dated? Why erasures aren't tolerated in such notebooks? Why access to the entire notebook matters to their fellow researchers and scientists? Why they matter to the scientist/researcher himself?
We may safely assume not.
|Date: 2013/05/27 15:23:23, Link|
Sorry, Gary, but your 'work' doesn't even rise to the level of pre-school science.
Given your demonstrated ability to read and write English prose, I suggest you should advance to the stage of "See Jane. See Jane run. Run, Jane, run." before you try to write any actual science texts.
|Date: 2013/05/28 08:11:42, Link|
Citation needed -- especially for the "I already have an overwhelming amount very important science work..."
You have, quite literally, no science work whatsoever beyond showing off the track site you own quite by accident to visitors.
You also need to show that not only is your work 'very important' but that 'deep pockets of science' are out to trash your work despite its merits.
Your work has no merits, except perhaps printed out and used for compost -- which is hardly ecologically friendly.
Certainly it does not take 'deep pockets' to trash your effluent -- it stinks quite on its own and your "defenses" of it amount to the shrill outpourings of a wounded and deranged idiot.
Perhaps your work would be improved by an editor.
May I suggest Denyse O'Leary? You two seem well suited for each other. But her writing skills exceed your science skills, so perhaps its a mis-match after all.
|Date: 2013/05/28 09:15:42, Link|
You are growing increasingly disconnected from the points you quote and appear to be attempting a response to.
Your response is gibberish when taken as a reply to Nomad and hardly better as a reply to Jim Wynne.
The questions and challenges of Nomad remain outstanding -- do you have anything substantive to say (for a change)?
|Date: 2013/05/28 09:27:08, Link|
You keep insisting that your document is so very very important and has such foundational magnificence in it, then you turn around and casually toss off remarks like this one and still expect to be taken seriously. Of what use are the '4 criteria' if they can be removed without impact on the theory? And why are they presented as part of the theory if they are, in fact, disposable?
If they can be eliminated without damage to the theory, then they should be.
Let me guess, William of Occam is also unknown to you, right?
|Date: 2013/05/29 08:57:12, Link|
I was finally able to find someone who appreciates Gary for who and what he is.
Presented in his favorite format [maybe he has a degree of aphasia?], I present:
Julie Brown -- I like 'em big and stupid
|Date: 2013/05/31 11:52:31, Link|
Poor Gary -- warming a seat in a classroom seems to have been the peak of his educational experience.
Even odder, how could he have arranged his life to so mangle the classic Pink Floyd line -- he's managed to 'march cheerfully out of the dream into obscurity'.
And he's accelerating as he goes.
|Date: 2013/05/31 12:44:35, Link|
That looks an awful lot like Gary's style of coding.
Maybe there's something to this 'twin sons of different mothers' stuff...
|Date: 2013/06/01 07:34:31, Link|
Gary really has mastered the art of mis-directing the discussion away from the actual content, such as it is, of his "theory" and onto meta-issues of considerably less relevance.
This works to his advantage as it allows him to continue the pretense of having actually crafted a theory, actually having contributed something of value to the knowledge pool.
All of us but Gary know this to be false; Gary hides the truth from himself by nitpicking side issues and meta-issues rather than facing head-on the serious criticisms that are raised time and again against his effluent.
So let's get back on track Gary -- if your 4 criteria for intelligence, you know, the ones that show an auto-focus to be intelligent, are actually not necessary to the theory, if they can be removed without impact to the theory, why are they there? What justifies their inclusion in your ever-changing "theory"?
Are they to be excluded from your document only because they lead to outcomes you find unwelcome?
Is the logic Nomad applied when using the 4 criteria incorrect or have you in fact created at least one version of your document that shows an auto-focus to be intelligent?
Then on to the pressing question of "molecular intelligence." At one point you insisted it was important and meaningful. Later you decreed that everything about 'molecular intelligence' could be found in a standard chemistry textbook.
As has been asked before, is 'molecular intelligence' intrinsic or extrinsic to molecules? Is there anything to 'molecular intelligence' above and beyond, or other than, the laws of physics and chemistry?
If so, what?
If not, what are the implications for your 'all encompassing' theory of "intelligent agency"?
Or do you intend to continue your fast march out of your dreams and into [even greater] obscurity?
|Date: 2013/06/01 09:37:06, Link|
|Date: 2013/06/01 09:38:31, Link|
The index showed a post by Texas Teach at 9:33, but I don't see any sign of it...
|Date: 2013/06/01 15:29:11, Link|
Which is entirely irrelevant to your own work.
It might be creative, but it isn't science, and it isn't in action in any US (or foreign) educational institutions.
Nor would the US (or foreign) schools be improved, nor would students learn any creativity, by having your work inflicted upon them.
Any chance of you defending your 'creative output' or will all your efforts continue to go to 'creative distractions'?
|Date: 2013/06/02 07:18:50, Link|
Yes, Gary, this is indeed a forum for mocking people like you. But this is for reasons quite other than your fantasized notion that somehow you are or were ever here to civilly discuss scientific issues.
We ridicule you precisely because you do not discuss your "scientific" issues.
You let the real case slip when you switch from 'scientific issues' to 'socially significant issues'.
Sadly, your issues possess no more social significance than they do science, and vice versa.
All you have been doing, for decades of pages now, is desperately swing the conversation away from any attempt to discuss anything remotely resembling science [which is as close as you get to science -- remote].
Why are your 4 criteria for intelligence disposable and irrelevant to your "theory"?
Why did this irrelevance only occur to you after application of the 4 criteria produced results you could neither refute nor tolerate?
What justifies your absurd, surreal even, contention that 'natural selection' is a 'subjective notion'?
Is there anything more to, or other than, plain physics and chemistry to your notion of 'molecular intelligence'?
If so, what?
If not, what then of your claims of a grand overarching "theory" that reaches from the atomic level to the totality of the universe?
|Date: 2013/06/02 09:50:16, Link|
But of course you are entirely unable to coherently point out where you have been misquoted, and how the misquote is a material misrepresentation of your position as opposed to a different choice of wording of the same thought.
Nor are you able to coherently present cases where you have been taken out of context, let alone by identifying the context, the distortion the alleged out of context quote imposes, and what your actual position is.
And still you would far rather focus on the imagined atrocities committed against you and your work than to actually discuss the work itself. It's not like you don't have the opportunity to do so. It's not like people haven't attempted to engage you on the actual science and your incredible ineptitude at either grasping it or modifying it in valid ways.
By all means, keep up your 'counters' -- the LOLs are worth it. And every bit of insane fantasy you post provides more and more evidence that you are the loon we take you to be rather than the 'scientific visionary' you hallucinate that you are.
|Date: 2013/06/02 11:53:20, Link|
Which pretty much guarantees he won't leave.
His entire career on the internet is intended to convince himself, by convincing everyone else, that he matters.
Until everyone acknowledges that he's important, he hasn't finished, and is left with lingering, but unspoken, doubts of his own significance.
|Date: 2013/06/03 07:45:56, Link|
And there we have it. Gary is presented with multiple opportunities to discuss aspects of his theories to which others have expressed interest or concern.
In response, Gary posts one of his longer screeds going off on a tangent about his entirely irrelevant and boring past, and his recent progress in his coding.
It all amounts to "I'm important, really I am. No, seriously, my work matters! I'm doing important stuff even against the history of oppression and abuse I've suffered!! I've suffered abuse and have stories to tell about irrelevant and disconnected topics from the past; that shows how serious and important all this is!!! Me, me, me, important ME!!!!"
Followed, as is usual, with what amounts to "I just need a bit of help from somebody with real knowledge about coding and meta-coding. I've got all the important and correct ideas, I just need help (which I trivialize) to make it all obvious to you dunderheads."
|Date: 2013/06/03 09:01:40, Link|
Two remarks on this insane bit of effluent.
Gary, you're reading comprehension is even worse than we had thought if you can't figure out what misconstruction in your original text N. Wells was responding to.
While we might believe we can infer what a sane person was attempting, but failing, to express with the phrase "where I worked in a public school teacher", we have pretty good grounds for wondering what the heck you meant by it.
I've bolded the problematic preposition to help you see how badly you write and then read comments on your deadly prose.
But really, the most astonishing thing about your response is the delusion that you are here in the role of 'teacher' and that your respondants are somehow your 'students', let alone that there is any obligation to behave in a manner you would find acceptable or in a manner suited to a classroom. There is no teaching going on from you to us, there is no 'principal', there are no students in the sense you use.
And you are in no sense behaving as a teacher. Never have (on line) and, as nearly as can be determined, never will. Tragically, you will never understand why this is so.
|Date: 2013/06/03 09:32:55, Link|
Why come back, Gary?
Read and ponder OgreMkV's post immediately above your "reply" to me.
I'm sure if I were to ask "what's the first thing you expect to get from people here" you would answer "abuse." Which is fine for snark, but highlights the questions OgreMkV asks -- what, really, are you attempting to accomplish?
If your time is limited (which is hardly exclusive to you -- it is a burden every living being carries), why do you devote some of it to this forum (and others)?
If they do not provide benefit to you, in some form or other, why do you persist?
Is it that you are not an intelligent agent, as seems to be determinable by application of your own "theory"?
Guess better Gary. Or acknowledge what your aims are and how well posting here serves them.
|Date: 2013/06/04 08:14:09, Link|
For all we know, it's one of his earlier drafts.
It bears most of the hallmarks of his work -- the only discordant note is the sprinkling of humor throughout.
Needs more '... ,here... and '...here, ...'.
|Date: 2013/06/05 08:30:48, Link|
If his consciousness is revealed to his conscience through the same means available to all of us, I'm not sure how it could tell the difference between Gary conscious and Gary unconscious.
It is very nearly a distinction without a difference.
|Date: 2013/06/06 06:58:49, Link|
Geez, Gary -- the one subject in which you have demonstrable expertise and you still do it wrong.
You are the living disproof of the universal applicability of the 'stopped clock' syndrome.
|Date: 2013/06/06 07:09:46, Link|
And right on schedule, there's the big lie. Yet again.
Actually, as per usual, it's a whole bundle of lies all tied up together in Gary's persecution complex.
Wes studied the 'theory' more than sufficiently to demonstrate errors you have still neither acknowledged or corrected.
It isn't a theory.
You waffle back and forth over whether academia is trashing your [absurd] work or is teaching it in schools.
You manage to get something trivially correct -- having lots of members of a profession doing X does not itself make X correct. However, if X is correct behavior derived from the core principles of the profession, then lots of members of the profession will, in fact, be doing X.
Example for the hard of thinking: that lots of doctors prescribe antibiotics for bacterial infections doesn't make it correct is trivially true (albeit misleading). The prescription of antibiotics for bacterial infection being a standard, and generally effective, treatment for infections does mean that most doctors will be prescribing antibiotics for bacterial infections. That's what makes it correct.
The correct response to your outlandish, and utterly useless gibberish, is to laugh and point, to merciless mock, to demonstrate that it doesn't hold together on its own, that it doesn't meet the minimum standards of science, let alone theory, and to continue to do so until you either stop or go away.
Thus, that's what folks who encounter your effluent on whatever web site you are currently infesting will do. That folks almost uniformly do this does not make it right. That the response is well grounded in science, theory, and understanding does, particularly when the effluent produced is as bad as yours.
|Date: 2013/06/07 10:56:16, Link|
Materially false to fact. Every word of it.
Were that not the case, you would be able to substantiate your claims -- all of them.
You won't because you can't.
We've all seen it, we all know it -- lies are all you have.
Repeating them makes them no more true than they were initially, and serve only to push respect for you into ever more negative territory.
All you ever do is cast aspersions on others, others who are demonstrably your betters.
It seems odd that you never, ever, produce a positive defense of your effluent. Whether that effluent is your ever-changing "masterpiece" or your accusations against others, you never mount a defense. You merely repeat the claims.
Are you simply a broken Eliza variant?
|Date: 2013/06/07 11:48:06, Link|
OMG, it's the return of Ed Conrad.
The horror, the horror.
Well, really, the LULZ, the LULZ.
|Date: 2013/06/07 13:17:54, Link|
Yes, but who doesn't?
I mean, really, you'd have to whack James Joyce upside the head with a two by four after giving him a massive dose of LSD to get anything to compete with Gary's effluent.
|Date: 2013/06/08 06:32:24, Link|
But Gary, you've already asserted, repeatedly, that your "four criteria for 'intelligence'" are disposable -- not essential to your theory.
You were challenged on why, in that case, were they present, but chose to ignore the challenge and continue to act as if you did not require these criteria at all.
Now you're insisting that these criteria must be used to demonstrate that molecules, at least, are 'intelligent' according to your, ahem 'criteria'.
Hoist on your own petard.
Or in this case, pet tard.
|Date: 2013/06/09 07:22:56, Link|
They all move at the speed of dark.
Only a materialist reductionist would attempt to assert that this is somehow the speed of light -- anyone not blinded by materialist reductionism can see that dark exists and is something entirely other than light.
|Date: 2013/06/09 08:08:02, Link|
No effort is required on our part -- it's all on you.
There is no 'attempt' to make it appear that you were wrong for using the 'exact same phrasing...'.
What there is is what you are furiously avoiding having to confront -- words have meaning. Your error was attempting to make a distinction based on different sets of words that turn out to be synonymous.
It is not the particular words you use, but your usage to make a distinction that does not exist that's causing the problem here.
Much like your insistence on 'molecular intelligence'. When push comes to shove, you directed us to 'standard physics and chemistry texts' for all the info necessary to understand 'molecular intelligence'. But the implication of that is that there is no such thing as 'molecular intelligence' -- you're just trying to create a synonymy between your nonsense phrase and the 'laws of chemistry and physics'.
Also like unto your insistence that your 4 criteria are essential to your theory, then that they were disposable and the theory would suffer no impact if they were removed, and now back to your 4 criteria.
We need a straight-up, straight-forward response to Nomad's work showing how your 4 criteria qualify an auto-focus in a camera to be intelligent. You reject the conclusion, and went so far as to reject the criteria, yet here you are playing that game again.
Your program is irrelevant, to be kind. It is your so-called theory that must be worked on, substantially revised, written in standard English, and then defended.
You won't because you can't.
|Date: 2013/06/09 08:09:32, Link|
Oh, would that that were true!
Are we going to have to drive a stake through your keyboard when you pass on, just to silence your self-important pretentious whining?
|Date: 2013/06/09 09:21:35, Link|
Pointing out your braggadocio, your failure to grapple with serious issues raised by your 'work', your persistent dishonesty, and your desperate attempts to focus on anything other than the 'arguments' presented in your "theory" count as 'bullying'.
Just where do you buy your dictionary, anyway?
Words have meanings, you are desperate to steal the meaning by using the words, but tragically for you, it doesn't work that way. Your usage of words trends towards "less accurate and less intelligent than a parrot's".
Somehow, I can't help but believe that you were a bully in elementary school. It seems unlikely that you've ever been the victim of real bullying, given how badly you misuse the term.
|Date: 2013/06/09 12:01:50, Link|
Ooooh, he's gone to ALL CAPS.
Gary, we all see quite well that you are both wrong on this issue and desperate to keep this, or any other ginned up pseudo-controversy alive so as not to have to deal with the problems that infest your "theory."
"Molecular intelligence"? You insist on its significance and dispose of it when challenged, only to revert to insisting on its significance.
Your 4 criteria for 'intelligence/intelligent agent'? You insist they are crucial (and represent new and important insights) until you are called on them, then they're disposed of. Only to re-appear when you've moved a few pages past their discard.
Poor Gary -- in the absence of the faintest bit of integrity, he goes for all caps. And unsustainable accusations of bullying.
Pathetic is as pathetic does.
|Date: 2013/06/10 06:57:27, Link|
The portion of your post that has been italicized is, amazingly enough, correct and coherent.
The portion that has been bolded is so mind-bogglingly wrong as to defy logic. Which is precisely what it does.
The only burden imposed by the italicized claim is for the claimant (that would be you) to demonstrate that it in fact does what it promises.
The optional course for others is to examine and critique the alleged theory and the attempts by its promoter to demonstrate its correctness.
You do not provide any meaningful defense of your 'theory'. Continuing to huff and puff and bluster that "it is so a theory" is simply not compelling. Nor is it particularly rational.
Your belief that your "theory" somehow wins by default in the absence of a counter theory is beyond ludicrous.
Have you stopped taking your meds again?
Further, one notes with interest that your 4 criteria for 'inntelligence/intelligent agency' have been thrown under the buss by you, which places an obligation on you to clarify the terms.
What do you mean by 'intelligence'? Your ever-changing document does not satisfactorily address this issue -- as we keep pointing out.
What do you mean by 'intelligent cause'? Your ever-chaning document does not satisfactorily address this issue -- also as we keep pointing out.
You keep running away from the criticisms and focusing on non-issues such as your accusations of 'bullying', your accusations that we are 'science stoppers', etc. [hint for the hard-of-thinking: for you to assert we are 'science stoppers' based on our treatment of you, you would have to demonstrate that what you are up to is, in fact, science. It isn't, and you've managed to demonstrate that quite conclusively, here and elsewhere on the web.]
So tell us what your theory explains about [undefined term:] 'intelligence' and [undefined term:] 'intelligent cause'.
Tell us what you mean by 'molecular intelligence'.
Tell us how your massive, and oh-so-imporant, software project does anything more than re-invent the Roomba.
If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the lab. Otherwise, man up and face your critics on the merits of your and their case.
|Date: 2013/06/11 07:23:59, Link|
No one is objecting to your use of the terminology.
We are all objecting to your misuse of the terminology.
This is a frighteningly consistent aspect of your madness -- you continue to pretend that the words matter but that their meaning, their usage, can be dictated by you and your ilk.
As it stands, you don't even do 'sloppy science', because you are not doing science at all. You appear to be the only one who fails to realize that.
|Date: 2013/06/11 08:16:06, Link|
We can only hope!
|Date: 2013/06/11 08:50:12, Link|
And it's incoherent on the face of it.
Aside from the unacceptable peculiarity of defining 'life' as 'molecular intelligence', a definition that fails in every respect, there is the absurdity of conflating machines with 'naturally occurring'. The only sense in which this can be supported is analogically, but Gary fails at the creation or use of analogies. Further, he relies on non-analogical uses of the conflation of terms.
Then there's the flat-out error early on in his "theory" where 'natural selection' is described as 'subjective'.
He has been challenged on this but to the best of my recollection, he has never defended this masterpiece of ignorance and stupidity.
|Date: 2013/06/11 09:40:24, Link|
N. Wells has already done a fine job of destroying your bafflegab, but I wanted to point out a serious flaw in your response to me.
To assert that I did not 'present any scientific evidence against the theory' is typical of your approach, in that it assumes facts not in evidence.
What 'scientific evidence' does one present to show that a basic definition is simply wrong? Your "definition" of 'life' as "molecular intelligence" is wrong on levels way prior to the exercise of science.
Your attempt to claim that you are arguing from a logical stance is beyond absurd -- you haven't a clue as to what logic is or how it works. This is proven by your absurd massacre of terms used couple with complete ignorance of the brute fact that logic operates on meanings. Meaningless terms lead to meaningless statements, upon which logic is impotent to operate. Yet that is precisely where you spend most of your time -- using meaningless terms to craft meaningless statements, in lieu of doing either logic or science.
The 'operational definition' for 'life' is not what you appear to think it is. Nor have you provided one. [hint: you left out reproduction and metabolism]
But now go forth and grapple with N. Wells' work.
You won't because you can't. And we all know it.
|Date: 2013/06/11 10:21:50, Link|
This is one of the reasons people become so annoyed with you and your effluent.
YOU DO NOT HAVE THE ANSWER WHICH MUST BE ACCEPTED BY DEFAULT. Which is to say, all that is necessary to defeat/discard your "theory" is to show that it is nonsense. And this has been done, repeatedly.
"I don't know" is a far better answer to whatever you think the problems presented by 'consciousness' or 'intelligence' than anything you've come up with. And far more honest.
NO ONE is required to replace your rubbish with anything at all before discarding it as rubbish.
When an oncologist removes a cancer, no one asks him "but what are you going to replace it with?"
Still less does anyone require that an oncologist specify the replacement prior to removing the tumor.
|Date: 2013/06/12 07:32:39, Link|
Boy, that point just sailed WAY over your head, didn't it?
It's true, your reading comprehension is as bad as your writing ability.
Gary, you don't have a theory.
You've never convinced anyone that you do, in fact, have a theory.
Insofar as you have any contact with, let alone respect from, educators, it's from the geological materials of which you are, quite by accident, the current custodian.
The most you can claim, and it would still be an exaggeration, is that you impressed 5 script-kiddies with your attempt to emulate a Roomba using VB.
|Date: 2013/06/12 08:26:16, Link|
You're welcome (and useless).
|Date: 2013/06/16 15:40:10, Link|
|Not just an armchair quarterback -- it appears he's watching a basketball game.|
|Date: 2013/06/17 06:25:49, Link|
Typical preening bullshit from Gary.
One no more needs to be a top-level scientist, or a scientist at all, to comment on and/or critique the work of scientists than one needs to be an olympic skater to judge olympic skating, an olympic gymnast to judge gymnastics, etc.
And again he attempts to claim that he has actually contributed to science. Sorry, Gary, but you haven't.
You've contributed some lols to scientists, but that's hardly the same thing.
You have all the scientific relevance of Eleanor Rigby, but without the artistry that turned that poor woman into the subject of a lovely song.
|Date: 2013/06/17 08:38:03, Link|
One could almost read this as an honest self-assessment from Gary.
Tragically, he is incapable of self-assessment, or honesty.
Gary, you are the scientific nobody with an antisocial attitude.
Everything you have posted, here and elsewhere, stands in (almost incoherent) testimony to that simple fact.
|Date: 2013/06/18 07:41:57, Link|
The Wikipedia entry on Eleanor Rigby has it rather differently. Not that any of it is conclusive, but certainly the gravestone of Ms. Rigby, near the gravestone of a McKenzie, in Liverpool near where Lennon and McCartney first met is far more solid evidence than anything Laddy GaGa has managed to squeeze out on any topic. ;)
Laddy GaGa has no hope of ever being as renowned as Ms. Rigby, regardless of her status as fictional or fact.
|Date: 2013/06/19 07:19:42, Link|
I mean that quite seriously -- who on earth cares in the slightest about your code or what it does?
I would guess that to a very close approximation, zero persons.
You've wasted your life on your pathetic software, which at best appears to badly emulate a Roomba.
|Date: 2013/06/19 16:05:51, Link|
What the hell does your software, let alone your "theory", have to do with whether anything is 'intelligent' or not?
Remember, you've explicitly disavowed your 4 criteria, repeatedly.
Not that we expect consistency out of you -- apparently that's not a criterion for 'intelligence' in Laddy GaGa land.
|Date: 2013/06/20 07:11:03, Link|
Gary, can you parse the bolded portion of this?
Can you than explain how it plays with the italicized portion?
Then do you understand why this sort of verbiage from you makes us all laugh and point?
Do you understand how this sort of verbiage totally discredits everything else you write in this style, the only style you appear to use?
You're quite correct, by accident -- we are on a crusade to stop science from stopping.
You are at best peripheral to that crusade, given that what you are doing isn't science. But the pretense that it is could eventually be damaging to those sufficiently stupid to accept it as science.
|Date: 2013/06/20 15:19:32, Link|
Surprise, Gary -- no one cares.
|Date: 2013/06/21 07:14:08, Link|
Is this sufficient to account for your lack of 'intelligent behavior' on the web? Are you, in fact, without a brain?
As I have noted before, your behavior does not appear to be within the scope of the 'predictions' or 'explanations' of your "theory." You continue to repeat the same failed approaches, never varying your incredibly limited repertoire of behavior responses.
Do you not guess based on current results, qualify the results of the guess, and modify your behavior accordingly, repeating as necessary?
It appears not, and this suggests that not only does your 'theory' count auto-focus systems as intelligent, it fails to count your own behavior as intelligent.
Surely this is a significant failing, even a falsification, of your "theory"?
|Date: 2013/06/21 14:09:16, Link|
Or Vogon Science?
|Date: 2013/06/26 07:11:01, Link|
Gary seems particularly taken by the 'education establishment' and the importance of being able to present to the pre-k to 12th grade range of students.
Perhaps he should build a curriculum focused on Feng Shui as it applies to deck chairs on the Titanic.
That's what his life's work amounts to, although without the precision or 'theoretical' backing of something as 'well developed' as Feng Shui.
|Date: 2013/06/26 10:56:40, Link|
No doubt about it -- right or wrong, or a mix of the two, Feng Shui is infinitely better grounded and explained than Laddy GaGa's effluent.
It's results typically look more appealing than his code or its output, too.
|Date: 2013/06/28 13:05:08, Link|
Why do you continue to assert that this is the case, when it manifestly is not?
YOU brought your effluent here, attempting to pass it off as a theory. That is what is under discussion.
NO ONE is under any obligation to propose a 'better' theory to counter egregious nonsense.
One might as well ask an oncologist what he will replace the cancer with, or the sculptor what he will replace the pieces of marble with as he trims away all the excess.
Your crap is crap in its own right, regardless of whether or not there is a competing theory, or competing crap, up against which it must contend.
That there isn't is more to the point of how dreadfully craptastic your effluent is, not a testament to how successful it is.
Your fantasies have gotten away with you, yet again.
|Date: 2013/06/30 07:31:44, Link|
So, you not only fail to understand the clear meaning of the first amendment [Note well that it does not mention schools, yet that's your focus], you completely and totally fail to grasp the lessons of history. State sponsored religions tend to lead to monstrous societies -- societies where you would not be welcome, nor would you merely be mocked for your incoherence, arrogance, and rock-solid stupidity.
As with all your ilk (Dembski, Behe, Torquemada), you believe that your personal confidence in your religious belief suffices to warrant its infliction on the people by mandate of law.
What a tragedy for you that this is a free and pluralistic society.
The first amendment is entirely necessary for the freedom of all. Or would you prefer to admit the possibility of Sharia law, or the law of the Australian Aborigines, or the law of England or France or Vatican City?
We are better off when religion is walled off from law, which is precisely what the first amendment attempts.
Now if you had any actual science, you could move forward unimpeded by the first amendment.
But despite your delusions, you have no science, nor anything resembling science. What you have is the drooling bafflegab of a brain-damaged poseur, which is hardly compelling to anyone.
Can you name a single person, outside your own family group, who believes you have developed a scientific theory?
Can you identify where your science is accepted and used?
Of course not.
And this is not due to any conspiracy nor any efforts on the part of "science stoppers" -- if you have no science, the 'science stoppers' don't even enter the picture.
|Date: 2013/07/01 06:57:50, Link|
No Gary, not at all.
The subject under discussion is your claim to have a theory of intelligent cause.
Yet you refuse to engage in discussion on the merits of that claim, behaving as if it were a priori true, established by the fiat of your claim to have such a theory.
Yet those who understand science, and theory, have looked at your material -- at your request/demand -- and found it entirely lacking in science, failing to reach even the level of hypothesis, let alone theory.
Despite your desperate attempts to shift the discussion away from this first and crucial step, you fail at defending your notion that your effluent is somehow 'science', represents some sort of 'theory'. And your failure consists first and foremost in your refusal to engage with the criticisms raised against it.
Where you are not irrelevant, you are wrong. Frequently, you are both (as in your absurdist diatribe against the First Amendment).
So to repeat, as you utterly failed to grasp the point when initially raised:
Now if you had any actual science, you could move forward unimpeded by the first amendment.
But despite your delusions, you have no science, nor anything resembling science. What you have is the drooling bafflegab of a brain-damaged poseur, which is hardly compelling to anyone.
Can you name a single person, outside your own family group, who believes you have developed a scientific theory?
Can you identify where your science is accepted and used?
Of course not.
And this is not due to any conspiracy nor any efforts on the part of "science stoppers" -- if you have no science, the 'science stoppers' don't even enter the picture.
To assert that this is 'subject changing stereotype based pontification' is indefensible. To further assert that there is a motive 'to mislead the public into believing there is not science [in your effluent]' demonstrates a rather shocking sense of self-importance coupled with an almost complete lack of ability to engage with the real world.
The challenge is on you to show, not assert, but show and defend, the risible claim that your 'theory' is in fact a theory and that it contains 'science'.
Can you find anyone outside your immediate family who agrees with you?
Of course not.
That is why we laugh and point.
This sort of 'defense' of your position raised in the post to which I respond is why we ROFLOAO.
And, perhaps, why no one takes you seriously, nor ever will.
|Date: 2013/07/01 07:10:14, Link|
A thought occurs -- perhaps, Gary, you've been learning 'how to do science' from the wrong people.
Ms. Ann Elk is not the paragon you should wish to emulate.
Yet your performance here, and elsewhere on the web, seems to be very much the sort of "performance art" in which she inadvertently engaged.
Seek real experts, seek real understanding, seek to do better.
Or in terms of your own "theory", guess better, Gary. You do not measure up to the status of 'intelligent agent' on the grounds of your own "masterpiece". Which in and of itself ought to be a clue.
(Where do you buy the industrial strength clue fairy repellant in which you seem to be doused?)
|Date: 2013/07/01 07:30:27, Link|
Speaking of changing the subject and going off on irrelevant tangents, let us not forget Laddy GaGa's frequent trope "I win by default if you don't have a 'better' "theory" than my effluent!"
As has been pointed out repeatedly, Gary came here of his own motivation to discuss his own work. That puts the relevant question precisely in his part -- what is his work, does it have merit, does it meet the standards for the descriptions he ascribes to it?
On all of these topics, we find Gary furiously shifting goal posts and attempting distractions away from the core -- his work is effluent of the lowest order.
So let me be explicit -- Gary, you are a liar. Your claims don't stand up. One need not have a replacement product in order to be counted as an authority [how many Olympic judges are past gold-medal winners in the field they judge?].
What you have produced has nothing to do with 'the scientific issues'. You have yet to identify any scientific issues, let alone step up to the perfectlly reasonable request that you enumerate some specifics regarding the 'various features of the universe that are best explained by intelligent design' (or however you're wording it these days).
Let us finish by noting the absurd claim implied in your final quoted sentence -- that study of the work of 'the most respected experts [unnamed, and judged 'most respected' by whom?] in the 'field' [exactly what field is it you are poncing around in?] is sufficient warrant to judge the output of such study worthy of credit.
Lots of people study and fail. Lots of people proclaim how hard they worked in a particular area and yet produce nothing of value. Some people get advanced degrees in various fields and yet so severely misunderstand the work in question as to be repudiated by their colleagues in scholarly institutions.
You've done substantially less than that, yet have the temerity to assert that because you have studied 'the experts' your work must therefore have merit.
Blatant nonsense, exactly as we have come to expect from you.
|Date: 2013/07/01 13:14:24, Link|
Else you could prove it, and make it stop.
"Fact" -- you keep using that word, but it is clear you haven't a clue what it means.
|Date: 2013/07/01 13:17:30, Link|
The proper scientific response is laughter.
Laughter and scoffing.
Why? Because the illustration contains none of the requisites of a scientific theory, nor a scientific hypothesis.
It is pure baffelgab.
And as we keep having to point out -- there is no need to replace this codswallop with anything. That's not how the world works. You'd insist the surgeon be able to replace a tumor with an equivalent mass before allowing him to do surgery, and that would make as much sense as insisting that any sort of replacement must be offered for your twaddle or else it must be accepted.
|Date: 2013/07/01 13:32:16, Link|
What 'leadership' would that be, Gary? Whom did you have in mind?
Are you laboring under the delusion that science is like a corporation, with leaders who set goals and policy?
I suspect so.
What about science, especially biological science, qualifies it as 'religion' in that twisted mess of mal-firing neurons you use in lieu of a brain?
But I am somewhat puzzled by your "...how relatively easy it is to win a court case against entrenched vigilantes, when science is on their side." So we are vigilantes, and science is on our side? And that's a bad thing? Yet you claim to be opposed by science stoppers.
Do your the two hemispheres of your brain ever communicate? Has one of them lost the signal book for the flags they use?
Do note, you do not 'ask how intelligence works' -- you posit vague and, ahem, poorly defined, characteristics called 'intelligent cause' and 'intelligent agent', then insist that a counter theory to your effluent [which is not a theory in any sense] be offered up.
It is beyond abundantly clear that you have no idea what intelligence is, whether the term is univocal or equivocal, whether it is quantifiable, or physical, or anything else about it. Remember your 4 criteria which, when put to use, showed a camera auto-focus was intelligent? Is that metaphoric or strictly descriptive?
Throwing insults is the only legitimate response to the behavior you exhibit. Odd how your 'theory' doesn't account for that, don't you think?
The only 'science denier' here is you.
And just when and how did the Supreme Court rule that current biological and psychological science are religious?
I'm sure the Scientologists would be eager to make use of such a ruling were you to bring it to their attention.
But alas, you are merely fulminating hysterical delusions as you attempt to spew verbiage in a response to the hammering your behavior and your silly notions have received on their merits.
Your language skills continue to deteriorate. They were not great to begin with, but you are nearing the point where 10 monkeys at 10 typewriters, plus a simple filter and merge routine, could produce your messages.
Ask yourself why your theory cannot account for the behavior of those who respond to you. Ask yourself why you yourself behave in ways that your theory cannot account for.
Then ask yourself if it's really true that you've wasted your life on this absurdity. [Hint: the answer is 'yes']
|Date: 2013/07/01 13:59:38, Link|
On the grounds of your own "theory", repeating the same action over and over again, in the face of failure to achieve desired results, should either stop or be replaced by a new behavior.
Why is it that your own behavior disconfirms your 'theory'?
Why is it that you cannot see that?
Are you not an 'intelligent agent'?
Or are these the results you desire and intend?
Do note that at least one of the above questions constitutes a proper scientific response to your diagram.
Also, yet again we note, no one is obligated to replace your diagram or your so-called theory, with anything at all before or as a consequence of rejecting it.
It fails on its own merits, or lack thereof. The absence of your "theory" is itself a positive move in the study of intelligence, behavior, matter, and mind.
First we clear away the deadwood and underbrush [that would be you, Gary, and your effluent], then we plow the fields, then we harvest the crops.
|Date: 2013/07/01 15:29:08, Link|
But Gary, you have no science.
That's all it takes to stop you -- you have no science.
But to elaborate, you fail to defend what you do have, your writing style is incoherent, your thought processes likewise.
Your only defense of your presence is to be offensive to those who attempt to grapple with your "theory" and its implications.
Note well that the primary implication is that your own behavior is not covered by your "theory", which ought to be more than enough to disqualify it for consideration.
Lack of explanatory power is a fatal flaw to a proposed theory, especially when the lack lies at the very heart.
Guess better, Gary. That's what your theory says you should be doing, yet you repeat the same schtick on every web site you infest.
|Date: 2013/07/01 16:11:03, Link|
You have identified no such phenomenon, nor class of such phenomena.
Thus, your question is meaningless.
Identifying the class of phenomena that might be called "intelligent cause" is a decidedly non-trivial task. That you shoehorn so much into such a phrase and proceed to treat the class as susceptible of a single overarching explanation, even while failing to do so, speaks only of your hubris -- the arrogance of ignorance.
But note well that your question is also entirely pointless.
We do not need a replacement explanation for any phenomena in order to reject a clearly incoherent assemblage of badly constructed verbiage, even when such an incoherent assemblage is called a 'theory' by its author.
Your work, such as it is, can legitimately be dismissed out of hand, even if there were to be a clearly delineated phenomenon or set of phenomena. On the merits, it is garbage, a misuse of the language.
|Date: 2013/07/01 16:40:24, Link|
Well, there's the 'Ann Elk' move. Monty Python should charge this fool royalties.
But worse, Laddy GaGa asserts, without support or evidence, that somehow his "theory" 'covers' [accounts for?] human origin[s]. This is purest bullshit, given that there is no discussion of replication whatsoever, no descent with or without modification. GaGa's madness is accelerating.
Then the equally bullshit claim that somehow his "theory" led to the discovery of Chromosomal Adam and Chromosomal Eve. Any faintest shred of evidence to back that claim up, Gary? Why are you not referenced in the works that announced the research that led to the description of Chromosomal Adam and Chromosomal Eve?
You do realize that both are implied by the discovery of Mitochondrial Eve, which greatly pre-dates your effluent?
IIRC, you had a great deal of difficulty coming to grips with Mitochondrial Eve on another board.
You have said nothing useful regarding 'intelligent cause' of living things, nothing whatsoever.
Further, you have not clarified nor enumerated any sort of useful classification system by which we may identify candidates as 'intelligent causes' or not.
But do keep up the incoherent ranting. Every word you write further disqualifies your work for any serious consideration by anyone other than the psychiatrists who will eventually derive mountains of theses out of your output.
|Date: 2013/07/01 18:01:44, Link|
But you don't discuss the scientific issues.
To all appearances, you wouldn't recognize a genuine scientific issue if one were to kick you in either of your remaining brain cells.
|Date: 2013/07/02 08:43:35, Link|
Some questions for you, Gary:
What are some of the features of the universe that are best explained by 'intelligent cause'/'intelligent agency'?
How does 'intelligence' actually explain these features? In what way is that explanation better than the explanation of natural science?
What is the basis and justification for your claim that 'natural selection' is subjective?
Those should get you started on actually discussing some of the "scientific issues" involved in your quixotic quest.
|Date: 2013/07/02 15:36:01, Link|
How is it possible for anyone here to waste your time?
You appeared here quite voluntarily, and requested certain things of the board's readers.
You continue to show up, mostly to whine, complain, attempt to dish out abuse, lie, and most of all, provide excuses for yourself.
No one is forcing you to do any of this.
All of your interaction here, from your click on a link to come here onwards, is voluntary and directly chosen by you.
You type up your posts, most [actually, all] of which are a waste of electrons. But again, you do so voluntarily.
So how is anyone here wasting your time?
Or is this just another concept you don't actually understand?
|Date: 2013/07/03 07:54:47, Link|
I call shenanigans.
You have no evidence that your "Theory" of Intelligent Design is having any effect at all in either science or education.
At least, you've presented no evidence, and you begin to indulge in massive avoidance behaviors whenever you are challenged to present some.
The only one constantly changing the subject away from 'serious issues' is you. You've been presented with quite a few serious issues that impact your "theory", yet you remain absolutely silent in response.
Except, of course, for those occasions when you fling poo, cast aspersions, denigrate, or otherwise avoid the plain and simple fact that your "theory" is under challenge. Challenges it is unable to meet, as all here have noticed.
|Date: 2013/07/03 15:33:39, Link|
If there were money in not having any science, you'd be filthy rich.
Why won't you discuss the issues raised regarding your "theory"?
|Date: 2013/07/03 16:35:21, Link|
There is no such obligation. Not in this case, not in any case where a new theory is presented. The theory stands or falls on its own merits (or lack thereof).
Sadly for you, you have no theory.
You can't even enumerate a subset of those 'features of the universe that are best explained by intelligent cause' -- or however you're phrasing it these days.
Nor can you justify your absurd assertion that natural selection is subjective.
Nor have you made any attempt to grapple with the challenges raised to your nonsense, pretending instead that others somehow owe you a 'better explanation' for phenomena you have not identified.
What you know about science and scientific method could be inscribed on a grain of rice with a 48 point bold font.
|Date: 2013/07/03 17:30:49, Link|
Seriously Gary, can you find a single reputable source that lays out your absurd notion of a scientific obligation to better explain some phenomenon or the notion on the table must be accepted by default?
There is no obligation to provide a better explanation if one can show that an explanation being offered fails on its own merits -- or lack thereof.
Your entire history on-line has accomplished nothing except to show the complete lack of merit of that codswallop you mistakenly call a theory.
|Date: 2013/07/04 07:01:30, Link|
As I've stated before, you have no clue what the scientific method is, what is required for a scientific theory to count as a theory, what a hypothesis is, how hypotheses are formed and tested, what falsification is, etc.
But you've succeeded to a minor extent in your extended rant -- you've managed to skate paste my insistence that your assertion is false where it claims a supposed requirement to propose a 'better explanation' for a phenomenon in order to overcome a proposed explanation.
No one need propose a 'better explanation' for you junk, no one is required to.
All that is necessary is to point out that it is fully and entirely garbage.
And you continue to refuse to grapple with questions and challenges raised against your garbage.
Enumerate at least some of the supposed 'features of the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause'.
Defend your absurd claim that natural selection is subjective.
Identify, unambiguously, what intelligence is, and do so in ways that escape the cogent criticisms of Nomad and others on this thread.
Discuss how your "theory" might be falsified, once it rises to the status of theory. At the moment, it is as far from being a 'theory' as "little green men reside on atoms and hold hands to form molecules" is a theory of atomic binding.
Your hysterical rants are mildly amusing, certainly more syntactically and semantically well formed than your 'masterwork', yet are hardly to the point.
You want to skip the stage where your "theory" is judged to have merit and be treated as if that stage had been accomplished. It hasn't. You've failed.
And instead of going back and trying again, doing better, eventually not failing, you merely hurl epithets and dribble insults.
You are a pathetic excuse for a human being -- and in no way are you scientist. Self-annointing doesn't work without the results. You have no results. A simulation of a retarded Roomba doesn't cut it.
|Date: 2013/07/04 07:18:42, Link|
What's particularly hilarious about all this 'expertise' kerfuffle is that Gary operates from an underlying assumption that he has expertise in 'intelligence' and so can only be challenged by an equal or greater expertise.
This is so clearly nonsense, it is hard to believe he believes it.
Gary, one of the main points running through this thread of over 200 pages is that you do not have expertise of any sort in 'intelligence' or 'intelligent systems'. You are trying to assert this, but based on the evidence provided, not only do you lack said expertise, you lack great chunks of the topic at hand -- intelligence.
Your own "theory" disqualifies your behavior as 'intelligent'.
Your criteria for 'intelligence' are, as noted by Nomad, simply a filter for feedback systems in general.
You have no expertise in 'intelligence', despite a lifetime searching for some. I leave it to the reader to decide if 'some' qualifies 'expertise' or 'intelligence'. I prefer to consider it as applying to both, for it is at both that you have committed truly epic fails.
Bozo the clown knows more about intelligence than you do, and so is qualified to critique your effluent.
Likewise for most any individual one would encounter. It is hard to imagine who would not be qualified to evaluate your life's work. Some might do better than others, but so far you don't appear to have convinced anybody that you're on to something significant, let alone earth-shaking or paradigm shifting.
|Date: 2013/07/04 11:08:24, Link|
Further evidence, if any were needed, that Laddy GaGa's huge-heap-of-verbiage masquerading as a theory does not account for his own behavior. Which, in addition to said heap of verbiage, leads to the conclusion that Gary is not an intelligent agent. On his own grounds.
|Date: 2013/07/04 15:52:53, Link|
So still refusing to engage with the issues and questions raised against your "theory."
Still refusing to document any citation in support of your hallucinatory 'rule' that the only way to reject a "theory" is to propose a better one.
Still refusing to address what is different between chemistry and 'molecular intelligence.'
Still refusing to enumerate even a subset of those 'features of the universe best explained by an intelligent cause'.
You don't do much, do you Gary? Just cast aspersions, lie, claim martyrdom at the hands of those who, frankly, you can only imagine care about what you are up to.
Guess better, Gary -- that's what your theory says is supposed to happen in the face of such epic failure as you continue to emit.
|Date: 2013/07/05 09:48:58, Link|
We long long ago gave up any notion that you would take either criticism or questions seriously.
But whether you do or not will have material impact on how your work is received. As it stands, it is a monument to absurdity -- the equivalent in science of Vogon poetry.
You came here looking for input, when that input turned out not to be the adulation you think you deserve, you got petulant, whiny, insulting, and otherwise misbehaved. All without ever grappling with the serious flaws pointed out in your 'masterpiece'.
|Date: 2013/07/05 11:00:02, Link|
That's certainly what your story became -- but it's not where you started.
You have not been 'bullied' on this site, nor were you bullied on TR, your prior point of infestation.
You've been insulted, but insults are not, per se, bullying.
You've had many of the plethora of errors you commit pointed out to you -- but that is not bullying.
You've been ridiculed when you lie, when you avoid grappling with the issues raised, and particularly when you do so in such a transparent yet incoherent fashion.
Your skills with written English have been mocked mercilessly, but the truth is exactly as the mocking would have it -- you can't write for shit.
The notion that your "theory" as 'documented' in your magnum opus is somehow suitable for K-12 betrays a complete failure to understand readability, how it is measured, and why it matters.
To say nothing of all the other flaws in that effluent you dignify, quite incorrectly, with the descriptor "theory".
If you want to be treated better, act better. Doesn't that follow from your theory? You know, that theory of yours that shows that on its own grounds you fail to qualify as an 'intelligent agent'?
|Date: 2013/07/05 11:32:48, Link|
Let me guess -- that 'dark cloud' was being treated with all the respect you and your "theory" deserved at Talk Rational.
|Date: 2013/07/08 10:46:55, Link|
Thanks for the link!
My city library has it, I've requested a hold and transfer to my local branch.
|Date: 2013/07/09 08:45:12, Link|
I still want to hear his justification for the claim that 'natural selection' is subjective.
Then I want to see how he can handle all the aspects of intelligence that he currently ignores -- forgetting, mis-identifying/mis-perceiving, performance learning versus theoretical knowledge learning, recovery of forgotten learning, how his "theory" can differentiate between knowing the use of a word or phrase and knowing the meaning of a word or phrase, etc.
Not that there's a snowball's chance in hell he could even begin to tackle such issues. But the claim that 'natural selection is subjective' is one he has made explicitly, and so should defend.
|Date: 2013/07/09 11:19:46, Link|
|He is getting up into afdave territory for unanswered questions, isn't he?|
|Date: 2013/07/10 07:07:55, Link|
Does not follow.
You can be, and in fact are, pushing all sorts of non-science and anti-science regardless of the fact that you are not pushing a YEC/fundamentalist view of things.
Remember, Gary -- there are many more ways to go wrong on a topic than there are to go right. You are floundering through a veritable drunkard's walk hitting many of the wrong ways without ever coming close to a right way.
You then compound the errors of your first paragraph with your absurd claim that what you have is a theory.
It is not, and has been shown not to be such a thing.
You have done nothing to defend the claim that it is, in fact, a theory.
Bonus points for confusing error with lack of ethics. That you happen to possess both, in abundance, does not support a view that blunders are, as such, unethical.
Only the view that you are, as a blunderer, unethical.
Regardless of how much science has to be ashamed of, which would seem to be very little imnsho, you have a great deal to be ashamed of. Starting with your delusions of adequacy.
|Date: 2013/07/10 07:50:38, Link|
What have your notions ever done for us?
Where have they resulted in actual improvements to anything other than your ego?
They have zero explanatory power.
They have zero ability to proliferate new insights, new explanations, or new understandings.
The very most your impenetrable prose manages to guffaws of laughter when people realize that
a) you think you have a theory
b) you think you have structured the verbiage to be suitable for K-12 education
c) you think your notions must prevail until/unless superior explanations are provided -- for specific phenomena you somehow fail to specify
You're a barrel of laughs, Gary, but best appreciated at a distance I have little doubt.
|Date: 2013/07/10 12:50:03, Link|
Well, I'm sure Gordon and JoeG do.
|Date: 2013/07/11 07:01:20, Link|
Indeed science requires evidence.
Science also requires a clearly identified phenomenon, or class of phenomena, for which there is evidence and for which an explanation is needed.
You fail at everything Gary.
This is not science denial, this is simply reality pointing out your inadequacies. No "faith" required, only science.
The 'science stoppers' ignore you because you have no science.
|Date: 2013/07/11 09:17:29, Link|
Epic fail, albeit a repeated one.
You keep singing this song, and we keep pointing out how incredibly incorrect it is.
Oddly, you were singing a completely different song early on in your career of failure. A few pages back we saw links to your belief that theories and hypotheses were to be evaluated, and were to succeed or fail, on the merits, regardless of other theories or hypotheses on the ground.
But of course we can all see the self-serving drives that motivated the change.
Just as we can all see the fundamental irrationality of your position in starting with the presupposition that a phenomenon or class of phenomena has been clearly identified and stands in need of explanation.
This is where your scientific failure begins -- you start with a happy-sounding phrase that lacks any precision or applicable meaning, extend it far beyond any reasonable scope, and then insist that all players must compete to provide the best theory for your hallucinatory fantasy as embedded in your pet phrase.
It's an old game, Gary, and not a very respectable one.
But since we're here, let's again ask why it might be that your theory fails to explain your own behavior, given that it is supposed to be a theory of intelligent cause, intelligent agency. Could it be that your theory is wrong? Or could it be that you simply don't qualify as an intelligent cause or intelligent agent?
Personally, I think it's both. But what do you think?
|Date: 2013/07/11 17:22:54, Link|
No, Gary -- it is very much your fault that you are scientifically useless.
So shame on you indeed.
|Date: 2013/07/12 06:53:18, Link|
You keep trying to start at stage 2 of the process.
The starting point is not 'as simply as possible explain how intelligence of any kind works.'
The starting point is to identify, as clearly and unambiguously as possible, what phenomena count as 'intelligent'.
You tried that and failed with your four criteria that simply selected feedback mechanisms, as so ably shown earlier in this thread.
Minsky is an AI legend mostly for having gotten so very much so very wrong.
Comparing your pitiful submittal to Planet Source Code as somehow obviating the need to actually publish in a peer reviewed science journal is beyond ludicrous.
But the worst of your crimes against science is skipping past the 'identify a phenomenon, posit hypotheses, test hypotheses, establish coherent relationships amongst the hypotheses to construct a theory that encompasses the hypotheses and serves to explain the clearly identified phenomenon which began the investigation.' Note well that in most cases the phenomena in question become increasingly clarified as the process marches forward.
Note that you have done none of these things and want to simply start with "here's my theory, you have to accept it unless you can come up with a better one" without ever clearly identifying what phenomenon or class of phenomena are in question. Tossing around ambiguous and multivocal terms like 'intelligence' and 'intelligent cause' or 'intelligent agent' simply will not do.
We're not picking on you alone for this -- any clown that behaved the way you do would be similarly received.
But it is particularly laughable that even if we grant your your late-stage starting point, your own theory is falsified by your own behavior. It cannot explain your own actions, it does not map to the real world in any way at all.
Epic fail, Gary, as we've come to expect.
|Date: 2013/07/12 09:53:19, Link|
Well of course you're not interested in hearing any denial of any of your delusions.
Your lack of interest hardly counts as a refutation, though, does it?
YOU need to understand what this work is all about -- because you sure as heck do not. Not if you claim it has any relationship to your "molecular intelligence" nonsense. Nonsense that both claims it to be something above and beyond simple chemistry and physics and to be completely encompassed by basic chemistry and physics.
We know, at least roughly, what you are interested in.
It's bollocks from top to bottom, side to side, through and through. Your interest is the least possible relevant thing about any subject at all.
And has bugger all to do with the truth.
So we will continue to point out that the reference you provide does not claim nor support what you are interested in believing it does. You're wrong on this point, as you are on virtually all others.
|Date: 2013/07/12 10:04:25, Link|
The other thing to note here as how you once again show your true colors as a non-scientist.
Real scientists are very interested in hearing that they are wrong, especially when that is accompanied by cogent and thorough explanations of why and how they are wrong. Which explanations have been provided to you, repeatedly.
You, on the other hand, merely bluster about how you're not interested and how you simply have to be taken as correct.
It reminds me of my little brother, age 7, insisting "I'm right and you're wrong and that settles it."
He's matured since that point.
Why haven't you?
|Date: 2013/07/12 11:26:32, Link|
|Sucker bet -- Mabus is more lucid and coherent than Laddy GaGa.|
|Date: 2013/07/13 09:42:28, Link|
True, but only in the sense that all are free to interpret math as they see fit.
You are free to believe that 2+2=5, you are free to believe that a^2 + b^2 = c^3.
But you are not free to declare that your beliefs are true, least of all on no better grounds than that they are your beliefs and you are free to hold them.
|Date: 2013/07/14 10:50:24, Link|
Go for it Gary.
I'm sure the 3 fans you have on Planet Source Code would contribute for a cut of the winnings.
Meanwhile, forgive me while I ROFLMFAO.
|Date: 2013/07/14 13:01:46, Link|
And the 'meta-reason', if you will, for why he is so desperate to find some grounds for action at law is it seems to be the sole remaining possible indicator of his own significance.
That Gary, nor Gary's works, matter not at all is perhaps the biggest bur under his saddle.
|Date: 2013/07/19 09:46:07, Link|
No, no -- it appears that that's all he does.
And as I've pointed out before Gary -- before you get to complain about 'science stoppers' you have to bring out some science.
|Date: 2013/07/19 11:38:16, Link|
A minor complaint about your analogy -- kf is quite the opposite of a black hole, which will consume literally anything that comes its way.
Gordon will reject anything that's not already present within him; no light will enter his world.
I do agree that no light exits his world, and insofar as that aspect goes you've captured the reality quite well.
|Date: 2013/07/22 13:00:01, Link|
Quite clearly not.
You completely ignore energy effects, energy transport, activation energies, and a host of other phenomena essential to living things.
Nor can you be said to be focused on the 'intelligent things' aspect, as there is no perceptible intelligence in your model, and still less in your "theory."
|Date: 2013/07/22 13:28:29, Link|
And yet another point sails far, far over your head.
Your non-comprehension is legendary.
|Date: 2013/07/24 07:09:17, Link|
Utter and complete nonsense.
Starting near the top, we find the oft-repeated 'certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause'.
What is still lacking is an enumeration of even a subset of those features.
That's a critical lack. Until and unless you can specify at least one [non-trivial -- no one is arguing that the Mona Lisa did not require an intelligent cause] feature that requires an 'intelligent cause', the world is fully justified in scoffing at your effluent.
Then there is your absurd contention that 'natural selection' is subjective. That is simply incorrect.
You now 'enlarge' on this to claim it cannot be quantified.
Your follow-on to those claims indicate a profound shift from explaining features of the universe to, quite specifically, explaining learning.
But then you revert to over-generalizing the term 'learning' to the point where it means anything at all that you care to characterize as such.
Your circuit cannot come close to 'making a virtual cell come to life' -- it lacks so many of the fundamental requirements as to make the claim laughable.
We've been over this with NFSim, with which you have yet to grapple.
Among other glaring omissions in your garbage, where are activation energies? Reversible reactions? Enzymatic actions? Cellular membrane transport? Other forms of intra-cellular chemical transport?
Without those, you don't have a hope of 'making a virtual cell come to life'. Probably because you haven't the faintest clue as to what life is, let alone what you are doing with your logorrhea.
You then degenerate into useless, overblown, and entirely unjustifiable pseudo-analogies attempting to equate replication with thought, driven by learning. Your verbiage quite runs away with you, and runs away from standard English at quite a high rate.
You over-focus on genetics, and ignore energy flows.
You confuse your terms, lose track of your points, abuse analogies, fail to understand criticisms, and leave your foundations entirely incomplete.
Castles in the clouds can get away with some of that, and you seem to have built a positively Escherian castle in the clouds. But when it comes to advancing human knowledge or understanding, you're not even a road-kill flea-speck on the road. You have nothing of value, except insofar as you serve as a bad example from which others might learn.
|Date: 2013/07/24 08:50:04, Link|
|Gary's problem is that while he believes himself to be walking in the glow of a brilliant insight, he's actually wandering blindly in the fug of a massive brain fart.|
|Date: 2013/07/26 06:57:22, Link|
IOW, "I have found a new way to animate an elephant flying. It shall appear in a feature film, will tug at the heartstrings of millions, and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that elephants can fly."
But I'm sure the coding provides a useful anodyne to the pain induced by criticisms you can't even begin to address, let alone answer satisfactorily.
Take two delusions and post again tomorrow.
Or deal with the issues that have been raised, repeatedly.
|Date: 2013/07/26 15:10:05, Link|
Perhaps a side-effect of the effort he had to indulge in to suppress memory of how 'well received' the previous posting was.
Look, Gary, your computer software has no more to do with real life than a Disney animation.
Without consideration of energy flows, gradients, activation energies, reversible reactions with potentially different reaction rates, enzyme facilitated reactions, inter and intra cellular transport, etc., your 'model' is every bit as far from real life as Dumbo is from being a real mode of transportation.
|Date: 2013/07/27 06:35:59, Link|
Done enough for you to accept the 'award', done enough for you to crow about the interest and 'massive support', but not done enough to show those folks the latest version.
If you really think that your code is not done enough to post on Planet Source Code, then it is massively hypocritical for you to trumpet the 'award' you received there for a much earlier version.
|Date: 2013/07/27 15:21:02, Link|
Pontificate all you like, Gary.
It's still not a theory.
It's still not capable of 'bringing a simulated cell to a realistic simulation of life'.
It still doesn't (and I believe cannot) list even a single non-trivial feature of the universe that is 'best explained' by an "intelligent cause."
Here's a free hint for the hard of thinking -- not everything that makes predictions is a theory.
At best, you have a slightly improved magic 8 ball.
|Date: 2013/07/27 16:12:04, Link|
They're not opinions, let alone ignorant ones.
They are brute facts that are part of the foundation of your failures.
You have no clue what you are doing, although you delude yourself into believing you have something significant.
But, as I noted previously, rather than wandering in the glow of your own brilliance, you're fumbling about in the fug of a massive brain fart.
That you are not interested is hardly relevant or significant.
There are many more things, many things of more importance, that you are not interested in -- and that's what has you stuck in the repetitive loop of dementia in which you've been spinning around and around and around.
None of this is new news, nor news you've only heard on this site.
|Date: 2013/07/27 16:31:13, Link|
Which does raise the slightly interesting question of what is it you are interested in.
Especially from the folks on this site -- all of whom give you about as much respect as your effluent deserves.
So why are you here?
What do you think you are accomplishing?
|Date: 2013/07/27 18:46:43, Link|
So, you really have no clue what the scientific method requires.
Even though this has been explained to you repeatedly.
Nobody owes you, or anyone else for that matter, a replacement for that verbiage of yours that you persist in calling a theory, even though it isn't.
Your "theory" stands or falls on its own merits. Tragically for you, there is no merit in your work.
There is no rule that says that science only works by competition between theories. Even if there were, you don't have a theory.
And you don't get to make up rules for others to obey.
You can attempt to improve your work, you could attempt to grapple with the plethora of issues raised against points made in your effluent.
You don't appear to be willing to do either of those things, preferring instead to insult those you post to, make up absurd new 'rules' for science, and otherwise behave like the total failure and utter jerk you so clearly are.
You make so many fundamental mistakes in your preface, your general communication skills are so appalling, that the odds of you ever coming up with an actual theory approach zero.
|Date: 2013/07/28 07:24:42, Link|
Well, Gary, since this is Sunday, it would be a good day for you to begin correcting your error regarding 'natural selection'.
You claim, in your 'vaunted' preface, that 'natural selection' is both subjective and non-quantifiable.
I submit that you are wrong on both counts.
Natural selection is an observed fact of the natural world [forgive the redundancy in that phrase]. It is objective in the sense that what is observed does not depend on the specific observer and multiple observers can be brought into agreement solely on the basis of occurrences in the natural world.
Natural selection is every bit as quantifiable as the individual position and velocities of ideal gases contained in a specific volume -- statistically. Given that natural selection applies to populations, statistical quantification is the only approach that makes sense, and for the same reasons it is used and valued in other realms of science.
Defend your theses or abandon them in the face of the correctives administered above.
Your "theory" will still be excrement either way, only the volume will be affected.
|Date: 2013/07/28 10:46:55, Link|
[much bloviating bypassed]
Oh, goodie. You're going to continue to invest time and effort in your own personal fantasy land.
None of which changes the unalterable fact that you do not have a theory, you do not have anything interesting, and, in fact, you do not have a clue.
Just where do you buy your industrial strength clue fairy repellent? It is remarkably strong.
Meanwhile, real scientists doing real research are making progress on the molecular side of things -- the cell -- and on the cognitive side of things.
You haven't even got a target phenomenon well enough described to determine progress, regress, or perpetual circular motion.
|Date: 2013/07/29 06:35:50, Link|
And people in hell have a right to expect ice water.
There are many rights which are not, and can not, be fulfilled.
We have a right to expect that you'll be honest, that you'll have some basic understanding of what your talking about, that you'll engage in discussion of criticism, that you'll get certain basic things right.
Sadly, we find ourselves in the position of those in hell who expect ice water.
To be explicit -- you have not modeled a brain.
Not in any sense whatsoever. Your ridiculous little n-bug is not only not a model of a brain, it's not a model of a living thing in any biologically relevant or useful sense.
No one needs to model a brain, or a living thing, to show that your output is crap and neither isn or does what you proudly assert it does.
It might as well be claimed that the n-bug detects food sources by use of n-rays, in conjunction perhaps with certain other items (like RAM, which you persistently fail to comprehend as such), and thus proves not only that you have a model of a brain but a proof of the existence of Blondiot's n-rays.
|Date: 2013/07/29 07:42:57, Link|
It is only necessary to show how your alleged model fails.
I'd say that's already been accomplished, in spades, in this thread.
But in particular, let me note that it is impossible for your model to be a model of a brain because:
it does not model energy or material flows
it does not model reaction rates or reactions that might be uni-directional or bi-directional
it does not model enzyme-facilitated reactions
it does not model activation energies for key components
it does not model the organically hierarchical structures of function as shown in the work of the gestalt biologists such as Gelb and Goldstein
it does not model other features we know to be characteristics of brain and, especially, memory -- forgetting, remembering, remembering after having forgotten, and 'having it on the tip of the tongue but not quite expressible'
it treats all memory storage areas as equivalent and equally available to all input systems
Those will do for a start. Your 'model of a brain' is no such thing. No competing theory or model is required to show that to be the case.
|Date: 2013/07/29 08:02:32, Link|
Let us move on (move back, actually) to the fundamental dishonesties on which your work is predicated.
You assert, quite without justification or grounds of any sort, that 'natural selection' is "subjective."
You have yet to attempt to defend that absurd, and totally false, claim. You made the claim, supporting and defending it lies on you.
You then compound the error by asserting that 'natural selection' is not quantifiable. Various versions of your preface of wobbled back and forth between claiming this as grounds for asserting natural selection to be subjective and claiming this as a separate 'fact'.
Yet natural selection is quite easily quantifiable, in precisely the way that the behavior of volumes of gases is quantifiable. Statistically, which is the only quantification that makes sense for large numbers of elements whose group performance makes up the phenomenon in question.
You assert, groundlessly, that 'certain features of the universe' are 'best explained' by 'intelligence'/'intelligent cause'/'intelligent agency'. You have yet to identify a single non-trivial example of what those features might be, why it is that they require some form of 'intelligence' as an explanation, nor how intelligence of any sort serves any explanatory role for those features.
To say nothing of the fact that you have yet to satisfactorily identify what you mean by 'intelligent', 'intelligent cause/agency', or 'intelligence'. You appear to fling those terms about like the drool off a Newfoundland shaking it's head after a swim. That is certainly inadequate for anything purporting to be a theory.
Yet you appear to understand those terms even less than a Newfoundland comprehends its own drool.
Then there is your dishonesty regarding 'molecular intelligence'. There is no such thing on any standard reading of intelligence. You yourself skated right up next to acknowledging this when you directed readers to 'any standard chemistry text' for details on what it is and how it works. Yet you persist in acting as if it were something other than the laws of standard physics and chemistry.
You have refused to grapple with the reality that significant subsystems of cells, which, by the way, are far more complex than you seem to appreciate, are capably and reasonably accurately modeled by programs such as NFSim. Yet there is no faintest trace or hint of 'molecular intelligence' as a concept in NFSim, nor, presumably, in any of the other biological modeling systems.
In fact, what NFSim requires of a model are precisely the things you omit from your ridiculous little tardagotchi, the n-bot. Reactions, reaction rates, reversible reactions with potentially differing forward and reverse rates, intra-cellular transport systems, cellular membranes, and so on.
Your n-bot represents the unholy, and utterly useless, hybrid of a magic 8 ball and a Roomba, with less utility than either of those devices.
It does not demonstrate 'molecular intelligence'.
It suffers all the lacks and flaws that Wesley has documented so relentlessly in the face of your dishonest readings of his and others work, and your dishonest statements about what is and is not in your code, what is and is not in your model, and whether or not your model is a useful test bed or proof of concept for your "theory."
I would prefer to say nothing of the simple fact that your 'theory' is not any such thing. But honesty compels me to point out that rather than being a theory, it is logorrhea writ large by one suffering a debilitating case of delusions of adequacy. Its only positive result is to demonstrate that the author does indeed suffer delusions of adequacy, enflamed by a need to assert superiority by dictating rules and expected behaviors of those who do him the curtesy of attempting to work with his execrable grammar and syntax.
|Date: 2013/07/29 08:05:48, Link|
You need not alert us that you are a troll -- that has been obvious from early on.
Too messed up?
You seriously believe you can model a brain, which is, after all, a biological subsystem of a body, without those things?
Than you are even stupider than I believed possible.
You must wear slip-on shoes, as velcro fasteners would be beyond your mental skill level, to say nothing of how confusing you would find laces.
But you are on record as claiming that the items I have listed are not necessary for modeling brains. That tidbit is unlikely to be lost.
|Date: 2013/08/02 13:58:51, Link|
Pure and utter nonsense, Gary.
Just where in your model are 'thoughts'? What are claiming here?
Ultimately, all your model amounts to is a fiction.
You are crowing about how an improved rendering spec makes Dumbo even better as a funding proposal for 'Air Elephant'.
You have yet to enumerate even a single feature of the universe that non-trivially requires an 'intelligent cause'.
You have yet to defend your balderdash about 'natural selection' being both subjective and unquantifiable.
JohnW accurately described your latest efforts just above.
|Date: 2013/08/04 07:07:29, Link|
Would this be the same Planet Source Code whose approval you trumpet in every post, yet on whose site you have not posted your latest code for fresh evaluation?
Is it not, in fact, the case that you keep changing the 'theory' that supposedly documents the code without indication in either the document or the reference link, so that the link to documentation on Planet Source Code diverges ever further from the code as posted, and 'awarded', there?
I'm sure your 3 fans on PSC would be underwhelmed.
|Date: 2013/08/04 09:16:45, Link|
Well, he abandoned 'molecular intelligence' (by collapsing it into plain old everyday physics and chemistry), will 'cellular intelligence' be the next to go?
It certainly should be, but one never knows with deluded fanatics.
|Date: 2013/08/05 07:18:06, Link|
The irony of you, in particular, accusing anyone else of committing a scam is truly world-class.
What is in it for me to point out the many flaws of your so-called 'theory', to ask the tough questions you continue to flee, to deflate the bubble of self-importance with which you announce your unsupported grand conclusions?
I do this for the LULz, and solely for the LULz. As I believe I've mentioned before, there's no need for any 'science stoppers' to attend to you until and unless you start bringing on some science.
So far you have conspicuously failed to do so.
But I take particular umbrage at your insistence that I want or need to assume, assert, or accuse you of operating from religious scripture. I guarantee you can find no such point made by me against your work. Others here have based some portion of their attacks on the presumption of a Christian creationist background or driving force behind your drivel.
I can't even grant it sufficient respect to accept that level of "intellectual respectability" -- I believe you had a blinding flash of insight while on drugs and haven't be able to do anything but wander around in the sterile territory of your drug-induced fantasy of a grand unifying theory of intelligence. All you have is the drug-induced fantasy, and it has consumed you.
Or perhaps you caught syphilis while serving overseas (Nam?), never got treated, and are now spewing forth 'the madness of Laddy GaGa', but without the style or substance of poor King George. But with the same level of connection to reality as the poor mad king displayed during his final months.
YOUR scam requires that others accept your pronouncements, ignore the fatal flaws in your operational modes, the lies in your foundations, and the many many operation flaws in your overall approach. The mere fact that neither your source code nor your soi-disant 'theory' are under version control casts sufficient doubts on your bona fides. That your preface is filled with lies and indefensible statements misrepresenting 'natural selection', among other errors, guarantees you will never be taken seriously, by anyone, anywhere.
And then there's your ridiculous code, which can, at best, show that it is possible to simulate some elements of the dreck spewed in your "theory". No connection to reality involved, only self-referential madness. Remember -- Dumbo flies in the Disney movie; why do you suppose no one is proposing the use of elephants for air travel? By focusing on the code, you're doing the equivalent of improving the rendering of Dumbo, while leaving any connection to reality as a deeply held fiction in your own twisted mind.
To believe that your absurd little pseudo-roomba somehow exhibits learning or intelligence, even in the absence of clear and precise definitions of those terms in your work, shows just how lunatic your behavior is.
You compound this lunacy by, on the one hand trumpeting the 'award' from, what was it, 5, individuals on Planet Source Code and on the other hand refusing to submit your current code to PSC for another round of evaluation by what would no doubt be a single-digit number of script kiddies.
Even if thousands of programmers acting in concert praised your code to the heavens, and awarded you every award possible to a coder, this would not serve as even an iota of support for the 'theory' you claim to have.
Good code, which yours isn't, can be written in support of any sort of nonsense. Which yours is.
You are a dishonest hypocrite, a desperately mad, sad, little man of no importance to anyone anywhere, with the possible exception of your poor family.
But you are a convenient target for derision -- as Heinlein, I believe, put it, some feet were just made to be stomped on. Consider me the steel-toe boot directed towards the bunion of your self-delusions of scientific behavior, significance or relevance.
|Date: 2013/08/05 13:24:53, Link|
Doubtlessly because he doesn't understand it himself.
He hasn't a clue.
|Date: 2013/08/06 13:24:03, Link|
Such a sciencey response. Erudite, evidence based, to the point.
The evidence is littered throughout this thread and your absurd document. You don't know what RAM means, how it works, at all. Your oft-repeated diagram is more than sufficient to demonstrate that, but when combined with your awe
|Date: 2013/08/06 15:20:46, Link|
I don't believe anyone here has been so foolish as to claim that neural networks can't be built with RAM and 'some' supporting circuitry.
You, however, have been quite dismissive of neural nets early on in the thread.
No, what we are all in agreement on is that you haven't a clue what RAM is or how it is actually used in real circuits.
Your diagrams show this quite clearly.
As do your blustery diverse claims.
That you can write code is hardly a sign that you understand what RAM is or how it is used. No more than does a 'coding award' show that you have a theory. Neither is the case.
Face it, Gary. You've wasted your life chasing a delusion, a fantasy of your own dreams.
|Date: 2013/08/07 06:44:24, Link|
So you use the same versioning approach for your software that you do for your "theory" -- none at all.
Now, were anyone actually to care, they would have to go to great lengths to identify which 'version 2' they were discussing.
That's just plain idiotic, Gary.
You should familiarize yourself with Git or Subversion or some other version control system. GitHub would make some sense as a repository and distribution center for your crap, although I'd hate to see it mucked up with your effluent.
But regardless of what approach you take, or fail to take, it is intellectually criminally insane not to clearly identify the differing versions of your 'work'.
|Date: 2013/08/09 06:45:32, Link|
You did not answer the first question, merely asserted that which was being questioned.
WHY does science need a model of intelligence?
Additionally, of course, what will happen to your grand plans if or when it is clarified that 'intelligence' is neither an unequivocal term nor a single thing/item/process.
Second, you are seriously confused [well, duh] in your assertion that the 'premise/definition' is or must be either true or false. It is, in point of fact, neither. It is meaningless.
You have yet to specify any non-trivial feature of the universe to which said 'premise/definition' applies. As such, it is responsible behavior to dismiss it out of hand.
Clarify it with at least one such 'feature' and we can start to consider truth value.
Finally, you expose, yet again, your total and complete ignorance of science when you claim that 'the premise/definition' defines a 'Theory of Intelligent Design'. Further, it is neither a theory nor is it coherent.
|Date: 2013/08/09 06:51:34, Link|
This has to be one of the most absurd things you've ever posted.
Nothing in Texas Teach's post was a fabrication, nor 'fresh' in the sense of new. He and the rest of us have been trying to explain these points to you for hundreds of pages and on multiple sites.
Nor is any of it defamatory. At this point it is difficult to see what could be said to you that would be both on-topic and defamatory.
The only one posting trash here is you -- and you ought to know it by now. You've been called on it often enough.
Finally, let me once again point out the absurdity of you, of all people, asserting that others are 'out of bounds of science'.
You don't even know what science is, as witnessed by your effluent to date.
Worse, you attempt to arrogate to yourself the right to define the bounds and chastise others for violating them -- this despite never having laid out your own, doubtlessly ludicrous position on what the 'bounds of science' are.
You are, aside from the humor value, a complete waste of space. Your "theory" and your vaunted code (what was it, 5 supporters?) are a waste of intellectual energy that might have been more productively engaged in pounding sand.
|Date: 2013/08/09 06:56:58, Link|
No, Gary, the truth is that the recent research work of IBM is what has totally ruined your pitiful attempts at cognitive science, source code, and efforts to model 'intelligence' using a Von Neumann architecture.l
If you're not aware of this, you're hardly one to lecture us on who is out of touch on the relevant areas of study.
As I've said before, I've not lumped you in with 'creationists' -- all the evidence I've seen suggests that you lump in with loons. That the set of loons contains within it the set of creationists is irrelevant -- you may turn out to be a creo, but I honestly doubt your thoughts are coherent enough to establish a basis for deciding that one way or the other.
There's no effort required to make our "theory" go away -- it will die all by itself because you are its only supporter, the only one taking it remotely seriously.
And current trends in modeling intelligence are leaving you in the dust of ancient history. Surely as a contaminant, but one that simply doesn't matter.
And you know it.
|Date: 2013/08/10 10:03:50, Link|
|Probably in the same way that 'natural selection' is subjective and is also unquantifiable.|
|Date: 2013/08/11 09:32:34, Link|
And yet you still have not identified what those 'big questions' are, nor have you identified a single non-trivial example of a 'feature of the universe that is best explained by an intelligent cause.'
Those alone are sufficient to cause your entire absurd approach to collapse of its on inanity.
Have you considered that science, as such, may not be interested in many/most/all of the 'big questions' that originate and reside solely within the scope of religion?
There is far more required for a proof of truth than that the candidate theory be coherent. But then you know nothing of science nor how it works.
We have no reason to suppose that humans were the result of intelligence, not least because 100% of the intelligent (strictly speaking) agents of which we have knowledge are human.
Furthermore, you are, as always, entirely wrong to assert that 'proving that you are indeed missing something important' does not, most emphatically not, 'turn the tables' or require a 'pissing match' to see who has a more complete scientific answer.
You really don't understand how science, nor scientific theory, works, do you?
A trivial example: one might show that theory X is missing item Y, which happens to be present in theory Z [which portion of the explanation is, by the way, missing from your little rant]. But nothing about this requires or insures in any way that theory Z might not be missing items A thru W, which are included in theory X. And, of course, in this sort of all too common situation, theory X wins compared to theory Z.
But you don't even have a theory, nor, really, even a hypothesis. So you aren't even close to doing science, let alone 'proving' that some specific theory is lacking some essential element that you can provide along with everything else provided by the theory you attempt to reject or overcome.
Just for laughs, I'll ask yet again -- in what way is 'natural selection' subjective? How is it correct to claim that it is 'unquantifiable'? You made those ridiculous claims, you really ought to defend them.
|Date: 2013/08/12 07:23:27, Link|
You, to say nothing of the IDiots, have yet to show that 'the materialist world view' [there are many, btw] is in any sense 'stifling'. Stifling what, Gary? Mistakes? Delusions?
Those are things science is interested in understanding but not in incorporating into itself.
A science consonant with 'theistic convictions of all the world's religions' is a fool's errands -- there are virtually no ideas whatsoever on which 'all the world's religions' are consonant. Magic/supernaturalism/'but I really want it to be like this' pretty much sum it up.
You are still trying to project your own delusions of the supreme importance of religion onto your opponents. Kindly stop until/unless you can demonstrate that universally amongst your opponents there exists a core that can properly be described as 'religious'.
Or drop the projection.
BTW, what possible significance does Wesley's church attendance have to this issue or discussion? Does it figure in your so-called 'theory'?
You attempt to explain Chromosomal Adam and Eve and get it wrong. The evidence is not what you think it is, it does not lead where you think it does, and you have contributed nothing to the theory of human development.
The record is quite clear, and materials on the subject are published almost daily, even in the popular press of science journalism.
You have no explanation. You have, quite literally, failed to even provide a notion of what it is you are trying to explain.
What are the non-trivial features of the universe that are best explained by 'intelligent cause'?
What are 'intelligence' and 'intelligent cause'?
Funny how those things are so frequently referenced by you, yet left undefined and sufficiently loose that you can casually change your story to fit whatever your current needs are.
You lack all rigor in thought and action.
In short, you are a pompous buffoon suffering delusions of adequacy. And your life's work stands as testament to that sad fact.
|Date: 2013/08/12 07:26:47, Link|
Actually, Gary, you're the one who keeps bringing up religion and avoiding science.
Something about mote/beam/eye?
Answer the many outstanding questions raised against your so-called 'theory', present a hypothesis, define your terms, play by the rules of science. Those rules include the meaning of words and a certain requirement for precision of text.
All things at which you fail epically.
|Date: 2013/08/12 07:28:53, Link|
That would be you, Gary. You're the local nutcase.
And in case it's escaped your notice, as so very many things do, you are incapable of producing a 'simple sentence'.
To say nothing of the fact that one does not 'answer' sentences, one answers questions. You don't know any good ones and are hopelessly inept at expressing bad ones.
|Date: 2013/08/12 10:52:15, Link|
You cannot find a single instance of genuine 'evolutionary creationism' that by itself constitutes a world-view.
In fact, the phrase only is meaningful within a world-view of that includes a priori the supernatural.
What has been stifled? Where has scientific integrity been sacrificed?
It would be sacrificed, a la Aztec rituals, were it not to stand up to pusillanimous bullshitters such as yourself -- losers wandering blindly in the wilderness of their own delusional fantasies.
You can't even define your terms, nor can you hold to the common definitions in use by others.
You are beyond being a joke, you're not even a self-parody.
You are simply a loser whose effluent can't be discarded quickly enough.
On the other hand, science will remain blissfully ignorant of you and your efforts regardless, and will, in no way, take on your garbage notions. This is to the benefit of all.
So discarded or not, your notions are scientifically impotent insofar as they rise to the level of science at all.
And they hardly ever rise so far as that.
|Date: 2013/08/13 07:21:54, Link|
Your use of the term 'know' in the first sentence, bolded, is unwarranted.
The next 3 bolded terms are undefined in your so-called 'theory'. In common usage, they are sufficiently equivocal and loose to be hopelessly useless in a work of science without specific, coherent, and consistently applied definition.
The italicized phrase that follows is refuted quite simply -- I merely reference the existence of a person who is quite willing to claim that the working of evolution carry sufficient of the hallmarks of 'intelligence' [which term she goes some ways to clearly, specifically, coherently define for the purposes of her specific argument, and holds consistently to it in that argument] that intelligence is involved in the process. Ref. Elizabeth Liddle, often posting as Febble, and hostess of The Skeptic Zone.
You are refuted on this point.
Your conclusion, as usual, does not follow from the drooling idiocy you provide as premises.
The next paragraph is simply your usual mess -- logorrhea with big chunks of steaming undigested malice, ignorance, and hubristic self-regard.
The only thing we have, the only thing we need to support our knowledge that you are wrong is the massive dishonesty, incoherency, illogic, and lack of even the most basic elements of science in that screed you continue to misname a 'theory'.
It falls on its own lack of merits, Gary, not due to some prejudices of the judges.
Science ignores you because you have nothing to offer it.
It's as if you showed up to a cricket game carrying a golf club and American football, insisting that you are prepared to play cricket better than anyone else on the field and will bring emerging cricket forward despite how it will upset the religious beliefs encoded in the rules of cricket.
|Date: 2013/08/13 08:01:46, Link|
Two outstanding questions that demand answers from Gary Gaulin:
In what sense, if any, is it correct to claim that natural selection is 'subjective'?
In what sense, if any, is it correct to claim that natural selection is 'unquantifiable'?
And as a bonus round question, how and on what do you think population genetics works if natural selection is unquantifiable? We seem to have a whole science whose possibility you deny.
Who's the 'science stopper' now?
|Date: 2013/08/13 16:44:04, Link|
Oh, my goodness! Shocking!
Of course, you probably haven't yet understood that science is not a popularity contest.
The deceptive, irresponsible, and above all, unscientific behavior here all emanates from you.
So perhaps instead of preening for popularity, you might, you know, learn some science. I would suggest you might even consider producing some, but that clearly exceeds your rather limited abilities.
After all, you still push the lie that natural selection is somehow subjective. And the lie that it is unquantifiable.
How very strange that population genetics seems to do so just fine.
|Date: 2013/08/14 07:12:33, Link|
The software? Suddenly the issue is the software?
Gary, your software bears the same relationship to reality that PacMan does. As such, it is of less than zero interest to any science journal of any sort.
THAT is the core problem, not any bias against ID, or even hysterically illiterate un-versioned documentation of something that utterly fails to meet the minimum standards of theory.
But much of this pain you suffer from alleged bias against ID is self-inflicted, you know. Where's the 'intelligent design' in your little
Drop the adherence to ID and focus on developing a theory. Drop the focus on the 'overwhelming significance' of your ridiculous little pac-min. Software is capable of showing anything one pleases, regardless of how the real world works.
And, before you go, kindly justify your accusation that natural selection is 'subjective' and incapable of being quantified. Explain how population genetics works if natural selection is unquantifiable.
|Date: 2013/08/15 07:01:12, Link|
And even if anyone were -- and they're not -- the software is entirely irrelevant. NOTHING about the software matters absent a theory (which Gary pretends to have, but does not) that explains what is being modeled, how the model is accurate to the real world, etc.
Gary might as well be writing a new improved PacMan for all the scientific value his software could add to world knowledge.
So how about it Gary? Going to man up and work on the theory, or just play with the software?
And by 'work on the theory' I mean starting from the very beginning, with a justification for your lies about natural selection. Defend them or delete them.
|Date: 2013/08/15 07:32:25, Link|
And we're still waiting for an enumeration of the 'certain features of the universe' that are 'best explained by an intelligent cause.' Heck, even a single non-trivial example of something that requires an intelligent cause would be a start.
This would be a minimum pre-requisite for raising your effluent towards the status hypothesis on the way towards theory.
Much more interesting would be questions about 'what is intelligence' and 'how does intelligence emerge from unintelligent matter and energy'. But you haven't a clue, do you?
You assume your own conclusions, stir in a goodly dose of circularity, and then rush off to work on your hybrid PacMan/Roomba simulator. Then whine how no one takes your 'science' seriously.
Well, seriously dude, you need to get some science in there before there's anything for science to be interested in.
|Date: 2013/08/16 07:27:01, Link|
And at a higher level, the exact same criticism could be raised with respect to the relationship between his software and his "theory" (sometimes call his "model").
IF the software exists to demonstrate the correctness of the theory, and the theory cannot predict the behavior in this new simulated situation, well, it's not much of a theory, is it?
What impact would a divergence between predicted behavior a la "the theory" and actual behavior in the software have on either?
At this point, it certainly appears that to all intents and purposes, Gary has dropped the "theory" and is focused solely on the software. Is the software driving the theory, such that the results of his drunkard's walk through code will later be embedded in the theory? Or is he just messing around?
|Date: 2013/08/16 10:51:54, Link|
And we got them repeatedly.
Despite their lack of impact or effect.
Which leads one to believe that Gary's behavior is not explained by his own "theory". Apparently, he's not an intelligent agent, given that he does not make a new guess in the face of (repeated) failure -- he just keeps doing the same shit over and over and over and over again.
It would be tragic if it weren't so funny.
|Date: 2013/08/17 06:35:20, Link|
Gary, are you ever going to support, or retract, your scurrilous claim that natural selection is subjective and unquantifiable?
Or shall we continue to point out that the level of ignorance represented by that stance is sufficient warrant to ignore whatever else you might have to say about biological science?
Your software remains an irrelevancy, of not interest to anyone, until and unless you can show how it relates to the real world of real creatures in real environments.
You're not even close to that -- PacMan was more realistic a cognitive model than what you've written.
Certainly, the Roomba folks are light-years beyond where you're at.
|Date: 2013/08/18 07:25:09, Link|
Amongst the least of the problems with Gary's "model" of sensory input is his avoidance of threshold effects.
But Gary doesn't care about reality, only about achieving agreement between his "theory", his software, and his delusions of adequacy.
Yet another epic fail for the Laddy GaGa files.
|Date: 2013/08/18 08:10:22, Link|
Still more evidence that Gary's own behavior cannot be explained by his "theory".
This leads to a binary choice -- either Gary is not an 'intelligent agent' or his "theory" is wrong.
Actually, of course, the choice is trinary -- both could be true, and probably are.
|Date: 2013/08/19 08:25:06, Link|
If that is what you get after spending half an hour getting the wording 'just right', no wonder your document is so god-awful.
Let me also point out that in your 'relentless search for modeling perfection', you've missed a few things.
Tool tips are not part of a model.
A model should have some relationship to reality.
How the model performs under circumstances not directly related to the modeling principle used tells us nothing.
I.e., it is irrelevant that I can pick up a 1/48 scale model of an F-22 in one hand, crush it in one hand, etc. It is equally irrelevant that I can't ignite its engines nor use it in real combat situations with a human pilot on board.
Your 'model' seems to have even less to do with any useful insights into 'intelligence' than any plastic model does to what it models.
Epic fail abetted by bad programming. Not impressive.
|Date: 2013/08/20 07:28:03, Link|
How convenient for you.
Upon your return, and we know you will return, kindly address the outstanding questions regarding your, ahem, confusion about natural selection.
Specifically, in what manner is natural selection subjective?
How is it that natural selection can be described as unquantifiable?
There's no need for anyone to proceed any deeper into your effluent in the face of those rancid floaters. Deal with them and we can begin to move on.
|Date: 2013/08/22 08:08:36, Link|
So, plenty of time to correct minor typos on meaningless internet whines, no time to engage in substantive discourse.
Or to fix the, let's be honest here, aphasic English of 'the document'.
Or to address the scurrilous claim that natural selection is subjective and unquantifiable.
You lead such a noble life, Gary, it's amazing you haven't been sainted yet.
|Date: 2013/08/24 06:25:28, Link|
How about we get right on that -- right after you take care of some of the outstanding explanations you owe us.
Like what do you mean when you say natural selection is subjective?
What do you mean when you say natural selection cannot be quantified?
How does 'molecular intelligence' differ from, or go above and beyond, the standard laws of chemistry and physics?
How does 'cellular intelligence' differ from, or go above and beyond, the standard laws of chemistry and physics?
Those will do for starters.
|Date: 2013/08/24 17:24:28, Link|
Goodness, Gary -- project much?
It is beyond me how you can read into my simple, straightforward, and still unanswered, questions the tripe that you do.
I do not, nor does anyone I take seriously, promote that highly contradictory beast 'a scientific method that demands supernatural explanations'.
We're not discussing here how 'intelligence' and 'intelligent cause', whatever it turns out you might mean by those terms, works.
It must come as new news to you, but neither I nor anyone I take seriously is claiming that 'the killing off of one kind of living thing has already explained the origin of life', let alone your own pet hobbyhorses of 'intelligence' or 'intelligent cause'.
BTW, you still owe us operational definitions for those terms that hold up throughout your usage of them.
And again you attempt to reverse the order of responsibility -- I do not have to defend any 'showing' of any theory whatsoever. I am simply calling you on the fact that you have made claims, claims I believe to be indefensible. And you continue to not defend them...
The problem, Gary, is that you asserted, quite without basis, and apparently without understanding the terms involved, that natural selection is subjective.
I'm asking you to justify or drop that claim.
You asserted, equally without basis or understanding of the terms involved, that natural selection was unquantifiable.
I'm asking you to justify or drop that claim as well.
Those claims are absurd, but you made them. Defend them or drop them.
That, dear boy, is how scientific discourse works.
Then, of course, there are the oft-repeated questions about your phrases 'molecular intelligence' and 'cellular intelligence'. It would be helpful, or at least informative, to have some understanding of how you mean those phrases. To do that, of course, we need to know how you come to feel that those terms are required, presumably due to their having wider or deeper meaning than merely 'the laws of physics and chemistry'. Or are they merely 'high-falutin' synonyms?
You appear to be the one bringing in supernatural, or at least non-natural elements into science when you attempt to assert that there exist 'molecular intelligence' and 'cellular intelligence' above and beyond the laws of physics and chemistry.
Surely that is charlatanry on which you deserve to be called.
Defend the phrases or drop them.
Again, that's how scientific discourse works. (You appear to be strikingly unfamiliar with such discourse, as demonstrated not just by your posts, but by that nonsense you continue to mis-identify as a 'theory'.)
I find it interesting that you close out your screed with assertions that I have put forth 'antiscientific hogwash'. This seems peculiar to me, given that all I put forth were questions, questions that arise directly out of your work.
That seems just a tad deranged, as in 'out of touch with and/or irrelevant to the matters at hand'.
Finally, I note with some interest that you have directly accused me of participating in fraudulent behavior. I suggest you check with your 'legal expert' as to whether that might be actionable or not. You seem to be so concerned over other's behavior in that regard, you really ought to hold yourself to the same, or a higher, standard.
But still and all, the questions remain. You react badly when they are asked, and work rather hard to divert attention away from them -- almost as if those parts of your "theory" are suspect, or weak, or unjustified/unjustifiable.
The questions arise directly from your presentation of your work. It is only fair that you be called on to defend them. It reflects badly on you, and worse on the work at hand, when you fail to meet even such minimal standards of intellectual professionalism.
Or did you never participate in defense of a master thesis or a doctoral defense? Or, really, any serious scrutiny of any work purporting to have intellectual merit?
One can only speculate...
|Date: 2013/08/24 18:20:33, Link|
Utter nonsense. [Not a request, a description.]
Poor Gary -- one of the reasons we're not discussing your notions of 'intelligence' or 'intelligent cause' is that despite repeated requests, you have yet to identify any items whatsoever that fall under those descriptions/concepts.
We have no clue what you,specifically, mean by those terms.
But we are also not discussing those items,whatever you imagine them to be, because your claims about which I asked are direct claims made in the preface to your "theory."
The questions are most certainly not 'out of context' -- or you could produce the context which render those absurd claims about natural selection clear and non-controversial.
As it stands, the best I can manage to imagine you doing would be to claim as context the entire load of tosh you mistakenly call a theory -- in which case you merely manage to demonstrate that you have no clue what 'natural selection' means nor what role it plays in the theory of evolution. You do appear to be confusing biogenesis with evolution, which tends to support my suspicion that you are entirely confused across the board.
So I reject your pretentious assertions, and direct your attention back to the perfectly reasonable questions that all flow directly out of the assertions you have so foolishly exposed to the world.
Put up or shut up; justify your ludicrous assertions or drop them.
|Date: 2013/08/25 07:32:14, Link|
This is what is so convenient to you, and dishonest as all hell, about your failure to maintain a versioning system for your "theory."
I have seen, and believe I have, an earlier version that lacks precisely the underlined portions -- which you obviously added after the pesky questions about your original, and utterly ludicrous, statements began to be repeated.
This is the act of a fundamentally dishonest person, to change the document under discussion while hiding that fact.
|Date: 2013/08/25 07:37:30, Link|
Once again you confuse the issue by projecting onto your questioners the issues that properly lie with you.
YOU are the one who raised the issues of 'molecular intelligence' and 'cellular intelligence.'
WE are the ones asking what the heck you mean by those phrases. Do they simply refer to the laws of physics and chemistry? In which case, you have so neutered the word 'intelligent' as to render it meaningless.
Do they refer to something above and beyond the laws of physics and chemistry, as implied by your usage, and if so, what?
Are you going to rush off and modify your document, your pseudo-theory, again to get out of this one?
Or are you going to behave professionally, or at least in a civilized fashion?
|Date: 2013/08/25 08:09:36, Link|
By the way, we're still waiting for you to produce an operational definition of 'intelligence' and of 'intelligent cause' -- definitions to which you will adhere and use consistently.
We would also like to see an example of what you consider to be intelligence and an example, a non-trivial example, of what you consider to be an 'intelligent cause'.
It would be especially spiffy if those examples were to be consistent with the operational definitions you owe us.
But it seems unlikely you'll provide such a thing, although you might again dishonestly update your document without version control to suggest that such have always been there.
A fundamental problem, one into which you consistently run, is that under the theory you yourself do not appear to qualify as intelligent or as an intelligent cause. You certainly do not behave in the fashions suggested by the theory to be fundamental to such things.
|Date: 2013/08/25 08:28:38, Link|
Note that here we have proof positive that Gary has dishonestly modified his "theory" to meet the challenge of what appear to be unanswerable questions.
This is from 2012, and the wording is precisely as I remember it -- an explicit assertion that natural selection is subjective and unquantifiable. No qualifiers, just flat out assertion.
If Gary now wants to insist that what he meant was what is reflected in his newly revised preface, why has it taken him so very many iterations of the question regarding defense of his absurd initial claim to surface?
Clearly, what his "theory" now states is not what he meant back in late 2012.
As I've said before, repeatedly, Gary really needs to implement a strong versioning system for both his code and the document that contains his 'theory'. Otherwise, it becomes impossible to have honest discussion over what is/was/is not/was not the content being discussed.
Gary, this is why lab scientists use bound notebooks, forbid erasure, and maintain meticulous dated notes of everything they do. It is essential. That you consider it, insofar as you consider it at all, as a burden uselessly added on by "antiscience agitators" speaks volumes about how little you know about either science or its processes and procedures.
|Date: 2013/08/25 15:17:36, Link|
You still haven't provided an operational definition, let alone an example, of 'intelligence' or 'intelligent cause'.
Lots of handwaving, but nothing whatsoever of any use.
Just what is it you are trying to explain? You haven't a clue, do you?
You haven't explained why you found it necessary to create and use the phrases 'molecular intelligence' and 'cellular intelligence'. Given that both are simply expressions of the laws of physics and chemistry, and nothing more, their purpose seems merely to obfuscate your essential inanity.
What do these phrases add to the discussion other than confusion? (And word count, of course...)
You really need to move into the 21st century for insights into emergent behavior, the significance of thermodynamics, and the radical difference that changes in scale make.
I would direct you to 'Into the Cool' and "Life's Ratchet", but they both contain science -- complete with polysyllabic terms. I'm not sure you're up to them.
I note that you continue to accuse others (myself amongst them) of 'putting words in your mouth', despite the fact that the words you dispute have been quoted from out of your own past posts. Obfuscating your changes by failing to provide a versioning scheme for your code and for your document is fundamentally dishonest.
But we all knew you were a fraud long before we reached the 200 page mark in this thread.
|Date: 2013/08/26 08:22:43, Link|
Nor even an example of what does and what does not count as an occurrence.
It's pretty clear that Gary has no faintest clue what he means by 'intelligent'/'intelligence' and is simply floundering around for impressive sounding phrases to make his effluent look good.
Something about lipstick and pigs comes to mind.
|Date: 2013/08/26 08:37:07, Link|
The odds of Gary having had a 'significant insight' approach zero at something greater than terminal velocity. And he's accelerating.
He is undone by his inability to provide a definition, or even an example, of what it is his "theory" is intended to explain.
I think you are far too kind when you analyze his final remark about 'the unscientific method' -- the meaning is quite clear, especially for Gary.
Apparently everything in Gary-land needs a new term, yet one that is commonplace and approved in common discourse. Quite a dilemma, that.
I think that one or two of the voices in Gary's head are beginning to catch on that he has nothing in his theory. They are the ones providing the drive to complete his "simulation."
Simulation of what? Apparently, it's a self-playing PacMan game. It has bugger all to do with biology. It is guaranteed that there is no respect in which it will enlarge, or even demonstrate, any aspect of science.
As was pointed out many many pages ago, a Roomba is far more 'intelligent' than Gary's bug. He's re-plowing an already planted field, with the predictable result.
Until he can provide non-trivial examples of what does and does not count as intelligent in his view, he really ought to just shut up. He won't, his logorrhea is incurable. But we need to keep holding his feet to the fire on this one point -- he doesn't know what it is he's trying to explain. He can neither explain how he identifies it when he sees it, nor provide any guides for anyone else to identify it, to distinguish it from everything else that's going on.
This, more than anything, qualifies him for membership in the "Intelligent Design" community. Except he can't even come up with cute acronyms like CSI.
He hasn't even begun to grapple with the question of whether 'intelligent'/'intelligence' are univocal or multivocal terms, whether their primary usages are analogical rather than precisely descriptive, whether they refer to processes or entities, etc.
His quest fails to rise to the level of quixotic; there was a certain nobility in Don Quixote's madness. There's only effluent in Laddy GaGa's.
|Date: 2013/08/27 07:20:22, Link|
Well, it might be if he would/could characterize what he means by 'intelligent' and how the presence/absence of that set of characteristics divides molecules into intelligent/unintelligent.
Otherwise, we're left with his usual wibble about 'molecular intelligence is the laws of chemistry, consult a chemistry text'. I.e., no theory at all, nothing but a pitiful attempt to dishonestly leverage support for his 'grand idea' from an existing field of research, with nothing new added.'
As Henry J said, 'he could at least describe the observed pattern(s) of evidence that his thing [molecular intelligence] is supposed to explain'
But I sincerely doubt he is capable of that, whether at the molecular, cellular, or systems level.
|Date: 2013/08/27 13:07:52, Link|
You do not have a theory.
You do not even have a hypothesis.
Your software is meaningless in terms of your stated goal of explaining 'intelligence'.
You have yet to provide a consistent and consistently used coherent operational definition of 'intelligence'.
You have yet to provide a single example of what it is you are attempting to explain.
Those mythical 'science stoppers' you keep referring to can and will safely ignore you until and unless you actually begin to engage in science.
You don't get to define what that is, you don't get to change the rules to provide exceptions for yourself and your efforts -- especially in light of the above lacks.
What will we know about intelligence, however defined, when your project is complete that we do not already know?
|Date: 2013/08/27 13:43:12, Link|
Were he to be both honest and specific, a single short post, little more than a sentence or two, would be more than enough.
Sadly, it is unlikely that either of those characteristics will suddenly appear in Gary's limited repertoire.
|Date: 2013/08/27 14:53:23, Link|
And the delusions soar to new heights.
See a Dr., Gary, get some decent meds. And take them.
|Date: 2013/08/30 09:38:34, Link|
Although one does have to wonder just how this advances science -- what do we know now that we didn't know before? What will this allow us to learn that we didn't already know? How will this advance science?
It really appears that all it can do is increase Gary's word count (which is already far too high from a signal to noise perspective).
|Date: 2013/09/02 06:44:47, Link|
Let's see --
"I uploaded code..."
"The algorithm is modified from what theory specifies but interesting [to me] behaviors still emerge unexpectedly [by me]..."
"The next step in [the development of the] code..."
"My day job..."
Yuppers, you sure brought the scientific stuff here to us mockers and deniers!
Wow, I haven't seen that much science since, well, reading the comics this morning.
|Date: 2013/09/02 07:30:44, Link|
Hey illiterate -- the response was to your preening, which was all about how you bring the science.
Poor Gary, so many words, so little sense.
|Date: 2013/09/02 07:32:57, Link|
How many times do we have to tell you that there is no requirement on anyone to 'improve on' what you call your 'theory', which isn't one, in order to reject it.
You have no theory.
"I don't know" is a better answer than what you provide, because you do not even begin to address the questions of what is intelligence and what is intelligent behavior.
You could, of course, begin by meeting the oft-raised challenge to provide a few examples of what it is you are taking 'intelligence' and 'intelligent behavior' to be.
But you can't even do that, prefer instead to wallow in your absurd self-playing PacMan code.
|Date: 2013/09/04 08:17:41, Link|
Having just gone through the latest version of your document [downloaded today], which still demands version control to be taken seriously, I can safely say that the only 'scientific input' that would benefit your nonsense would be a complete discard and rewrite.
Your material is nonsense, relies on blatant and unsupported assertions, and, on the one hand, renders the term 'intelligence' useless by applying it to chemical reactions, and on the other hand grossly extends it by bad analogy to apply at larger scales than individual living beings.
At points, you appear to conflate 'intelligence' with 'alive'.
You assert that cells all have internal memory functions, which is nonsense at the same level of twaddle as your assertion that chemical reactions are controlled by or directly exhibit "intelligence."
Your work is meaningless and will lead to no new insights, no discoveries, no enhancement of human knowledge.
It lacks precision where it needs it and becomes needlessly 'pseudo-precise' in ways which render it wrong [case in point: your 'flow diagram' of the 'algorithm' of Darwinian evolution].
If it has examples of what you mean by 'intelligence/intelligent' and non-trivial features of the universe 'best explained by intelligent cause', they are not directly specified or called out, they are buried in the verbal meanderings that flows from you like effluent from a sewer. I'll wager that you cannot, and because you cannot, you will not, provide specific references to precise locations in your text (page and line, or even page and paragraph number) that contain the examples you assert are there.
The examples I could find are either literally wrong or literally trivial.
The scientific community, of which you are definitely not a part, need to nothing but continue to ignore you while focusing instead on useful work as embodied in biophysics, bio-thermodynamics, biology, etc.
You are nowhere near to programming the behavior of a cell, while systems that are well on their way to doing that already exist and are not taken into account by you.
We've been over this before.
In particular, you need to re-work all of your material on chemistry and physics, correcting where it is wrong [most places], providing references, specific references to specific peer-reviewed published literature, to support the assertions you proceed to take as givens or as foundational, and take into account real physics and real thermodynamics as they effect chemistry and biology.
I.e., you need to learn, and make use of, real science.
What you have is not science or anything like it.
So, on this site as on other sites you have infested, you receive more attention and respect than you deserve.
Ridicule and contempt are the wages of your ridiculous efforts, particularly of the dishonesty, smug arrogance, and self-importance in which you wrap your allegedly 'scientific' work.
|Date: 2013/09/06 08:53:27, Link|
And yet the most you can do is imply that 'control' means
intelligent control, in some contrived and fuzzy sense of 'intelligent', which is taken to be the same form of intelligence shown in a watchmaker building a watch.
But somehow, you are unable to develop or present a theory of 'molecular' or 'cellular' intelligence which goes above and beyond the laws of physics and chemistry.
For the real world, this behavior does not count as 'intelligent' in a precise sense of the term, nor does it violate, escape, or work outside of the bounds of the laws of physics and chemistry. Nothing more is required, yet you keep trying to imply that there is.
You're a fraud Gary.
|Date: 2013/09/06 10:22:02, Link|
And what does any of this have to do with the topics at hand?
Continuing to nod in the direction of Heiserman, or any of the others whose work you purport to represent, is meaningless self-important preening on your part.
It does not speak to the critical issue that you do not have any definition at all of 'intelligence', let alone an operation definition. In other words, there is no way to determine whether or not the term is being applied inappropriately.
I claim you are using it inappropriately, and at best solely by analogy, when you prattle on about 'molecular intelligence' and 'cellular intelligence'. My justification is that you do not present useful examples, you point at technical works that clearly do not support your delusional efforts, and you are obviously extending a metaphor far beyond its point of usefulness.
Why does your document present only simple ionic interaction in your "discussion" [hah!] of the non-random behavior of matter? [As if that were controversial, or represented a real insight on your part?]
Where are the organic chemical reactions, the reactions that are meaningful for living beings? Absent, that's where.
Where is the emergence of intelligence, which even you have given lip service to the notion of its existence as an emergent property, when you extend it down to the level of the atom and up to the level of universe? How can that which is already there 'emerge'? From what does it emerge?
Your posturing about 'molecular intelligence' are undone by your own stance:
And then of course you weasel it by asserting that that which you have just ruled out isn't really ruled out but can be treated as if it has been for the purposes of the theory on the basis of which you have ruled it out.
You're a very confused fraud, Gary. You can't even decide whether you are arguing that 'intelligent cause' is required for the presence of 'intelligence' or not.
|Date: 2013/09/06 11:04:03, Link|
Goodness, that's responsive.
Your clear and compelling support of your position has sure convinced me! [/sark]
Gary, I quoted from the Word version of your document, current as of July 23, 2013. Is your "response" intended to show me that you've updated your doc or that the .doc and .pdf versions are out of synch?
Neither reflects well on you and your "work".
Why is genuine versioning so difficult for you?
Did you know that Git and GitHub will allow you to version, for free, and covering both code and documentation?
|Date: 2013/09/06 12:25:17, Link|
What an odd response given that my reply to you was based on quotes from the latest version of your own work.
Do your quotes support my take or not? Of course they do.
The verbiage quoted is about as clear as you ever get, and very clearly makes the point I raise.
You're a pathetic fraud Gary, but at least you've managed to go on record as acknowledging that questioning your own words, in context, and showing how they invalidate your own work counts - for you - as "the same mudslinging BS".
I'm sure that if you've countered it 'over and over again', you'll be able to link to where and support how that counter actually succeeds. To say nothing of why your document doesn't contain the correction contained in this alleged 'counter'.
|Date: 2013/09/07 06:24:12, Link|
Why would you think it should be?
Populations evolve, not individuals.
A 2-legged dog or goat, naturally 2-legged that is, a genetically 2-legged dog or goat, is highly unlikely to be able to successfully mate/breed, and thus the genes responsible would be vanishingly unlikely to be passed along.
Unless, of course, the fitness landscape were, in some fashion, to favor 2-legged over 4-legged dogs or goats, in which case the odds of breeding would be expected to remain the same as previously the case for 4-legged, and breeding/mating odds would increase. Thus, the genes responsible might be expected to be passed along, and the population now has a favorable mutation available.
If the fitness landscape continues to favor 2-legged over 4-legged, even only slightly, well, 2-legged 'dogs' or 'goats' would establish into the population.
Beyond this hyper-simplified version, well, learn some basic evolutionary theory you dolt.
And if you're capable, dig into population genetics, were the details are rather better worked out than you are capable of appreciated at this stage of your ignorance.
|Date: 2013/09/07 09:14:25, Link|
You're the one with the ever shifting goalposts.
Where in evolutionary theory, or in 'theory of learning' or 'theory [more properly theories] of intelligence' is it required, or even suggested, that RM&NS are involved in what an individual creature can/does/might/might not/does not learn in the span of its individual life?
Where is it claimed, other than Lamarckian theories, and perhaps your effluent, that what is learned is passed on to subsequent generations?
Where does 'intelligence' in your sense(s) become involved in genetics? You imply that it does, but you are also on record as stating that chemical changes do not meet all 4 of the necessary conditions of intelligence.
Once again, you are horribly, entirely confused.
We, by which I mean the reality based community, understand where and how genetics is involved in passing along traits. We understand that animals that become 2 legged through accident cannot pass this trait along as it is not genetic. Animals that are genetically 2-legged may or may not pass on the trait, as perviously described. What do you find objectionable about that description? Was it too complex for you?
And we also understand that genetics control the building of the frameworks in which learning ultimately does/does not happen. But this 'involvement' is no more 'intelligent' than your ionic reactions as expressed in your document in the section on the non-random behavior of matter.
Are you claiming that RM&NS play a direct role in learning?
Are you claiming that standard evolutionary theory requires or even suggests that RM&NS play a direct and, so to speak, participatory role in learning?
Yes intelligence is required for a 2-legged animal to learn to walk. Did you know it is also required for 4-legged animals?
So what? This has nothing to do with evolution per se.
If you think it does, say so and say why.
|Date: 2013/09/07 09:18:31, Link|
And, by the way, you are clearly the one doing the running.
When are you going to express the contradiction in your "theory" that I pointed out?
Your goalposts shift back and forth between 'these 4 conditions are necessary for intelligence to be present' to 'chemical interactions do not display all 4 conditions required by the theory but we cannot rule out the presence of intelligence at this level.'
Do you even know what a necessary condition is? What the term means?
Have you or have you not defined 4 conditions necessary for intelligence?
Move those goalposts Gary, move them all you like.
The fact remains that you are the one who does not have a theory, does not answer questions or challenges, who changes the content of your document out from under commenters, who constantly whines about how badly he is treated and how significant he really is without ever stepping up to the challenges raised that show your "theory" is
a) not a theory at all
b) useless nonsense
|Date: 2013/09/07 11:24:57, Link|
So insults instead of argument. Goal posts removed from the ground and discarded.
You have not 'defeated' my arguments, you've not even bothered to address them.
You are a cowardly fraud Gary.
Again, who says that RM&NS have anything directly to do with learning?
Who says they should or need to have anything directly to do with learning?
Who says that learned behaviors that do not arise from and result in changes to the genome will be inherited?
Who says that things outside of the chemical changes to the genome are available for transmission and selection via NS&RM?
Who says they need to?
Here's a new word for you, Gary, and a new concept:
RM&NS are orthogonal to intelligence and vice versa.
Yes, they intersect, but not at all in the ways that you intimate.
And the contradiction remains in your so-called "theory":
Either your theory specifies 4 necessary conditions for 'intelligence' or it does not.
If it does, there is no such thing as 'molecular intelligence' because you yourself claim that chemical/molecular interactions do not have all 4 criteria.
It if does not, then what's the point of their inclusion in your "theory"?
In fact, you don't have a theory, and it increasingly appears that you don't even have a clue.
Re-read my posts from today and meet the challenge.
Which, of course, basically means admit you're a clueless fraud.
|Date: 2013/09/07 14:56:15, Link|
I was arguing neither for nor against any views you might have on 'epigenetics'.
I was challenging your claim that somehow it was the job of 'the theory of evolution' to explain how a 2 legged animal learned to walk.
You persist in error, which is hardly a surprise.
Are you seriously attempting to argue that 'learning' is the same thing as 'epigenetics'?
Are you arguing that 'evolutionary theory' is wrong and must be discarded in toto given your claim that it did not predict epigenetics?
This would be particularly bizarre for your "theory" predicts nothing, least of all either genetics nor epigenetics.
You continue to try to have it both ways by claiming 'molecular'/cellular intelligence' while simultaneously denying intelligence to molecules and individual cells.
Your charade grows thin and threadbare.
RM&NS need not explain learning for they are orthogonal to it.
Learning need not explain genes and inheritance, as they are orthogonal to it.
You appear to be orthogonal to reality, which is quite a feat for one of such limited skills and insight as yourself.
|Date: 2013/09/07 15:39:24, Link|
Except, of course, that you are entirely in error to suppose that RM&NS are directly, participatorily, involved in learning.
This was your ludicrous claim.
Show me where and how reproduction and descent with variation in slowly changing fitness landscapes is modeled in your "theory".
You can't, not least because you simply left them out, yet you continue to focus your complaints on the very aspects of biological science which are active in RM&NS.
It is impossible for your theory to somehow 'disprove' RM&NS for they are out of the scope of your "theory" as it stands in the most recent version I have -- 7-23-13.
So your "theory" cannot explain either descent or variation.
It is ridiculous to charge that "evolution can't explain how learning works" because evolution doesn't try to.
You're stuck at trying to extend the 'intelligence' metaphor of your nonsense down into levels where your own theory asserts they do not apply. And, of course, you fail, as contradictions always do.
There's nothing wrong with evolutionary theory with respect to learning. Just as there's nothing wrong with respect to physics or chemistry or astronomy with respect to learning -- or anything else out of scope for those perfectly respectable theories.
There's nothing right about your "theory" and your grandiose claims for it.
What you can do in software is irrelevant until and unless you can map it to the real world. You can't, because it isn't launched from or modeled on the real world.
Your theory doesn't even make predictions -- and you yourself have posted that your vaunted software behaves in ways that you cannot predict, which is a failing of your "theory" as a basis for your software.
So, your slings and arrows all count as misses.
You have no valid objections and, worse, you have no actual theory that is of any use, let alone superiority, in those areas address by RM&NS and modern biology.
IOW, you continue to be a pathetic loser.
|Date: 2013/09/07 17:02:07, Link|
Where is reproduction and where is descent with modification?
They're not there, are they?
And let's not overlook that it remains entirely an assertion, to all appearances an unsupported assertion, that your 'work', mistakenly called a 'theory', can explain how a 2 legged animal can learn to walk.
The diagram fails, and your software isn't up to the task.
You got nothing.
|Date: 2013/09/07 17:05:50, Link|
And don't think we see once again your absurd ploy that somehow your nonsense represents a 'default' that must be adopted until and unless a 'better' theory can be shown.
That's no part of science, only a core element in your delusional view of the world.
And your diagram continues to conflict with the document as of 7-23-13. Molecular intelligence doesn't meet your 4 necessary criteria, so it can't be intelligence, right?
No reproduction, no heritable variation, no demonstration that your nonsense can actually explain how a 2 legged form of a normally 4 legged animal can learn to walk.
Epic fail, as per always.
Way to waste your life, Gary.
|Date: 2013/09/08 07:00:00, Link|
And the flood of error continues unabated, with nary a word in support of the nonsense you began it with.
RM&NS are not a 'generalization/metaphor', nor are they unfalsifiable.
Random mutations are about as solid an observation of the facts that changes in genes occur, and are not directed.
If you think that's unfalsifiable, you're hopelessly cluelessly insane.
Natural selection is equally something that is directly observable, verifiable, and falsifiable. To falsify it, all you would have to find is a case where the simulation of natural selection, by selective breeding, fails.
Given that we have gene, and thus molecular, level understanding and verification of this, you're pretty much hosed on your absurd hostility to these ideas.
What's peculiar is how you seem to think that they must be involved in learning or learning theory. Why on earth do you think that? Who claims that, other than you?
What would it even mean, especially in a world that is demonstrably not Lamarckian?
And take a clue -- "learning" does not, in any typical or meaningful sense of the term, take place over generations of time. Each new generation starts at the same point from a learning perspective -- zero knowledge. All knowledge must be acquired afresh by each generation -- that's [part of] what learning is.
Or are you really a Lamarckian underneath it all? Learned traits are passed along to subsequent generations?
Only in your delusional fantasy that uses a bad, and ultimately incorrect, analogy to drive your "theory" down into territory that you yourself proclaim it doesn't belong in.
Remember? You assert that chemical, and thus molecular and cellular, interactions do not meet all 4 necessary criteria for intelligence proclaimed by your document, mistakenly called your 'theory'.
Either your 4 necessary criteria are not all necessary or your are incorrect that chemical interactions fail to meet all 4 criteria.
Which is it, Gary?
Or is it the tragic third alternative -- you're a deluded fraud without a clue, who madly confuses his own work and contradicts himself?
Meanwhile, of course, you will go for pages and pages fulminating against trivialities while never, ever standing up and defending your theory on its merits, or [demonstrated] lack thereof. Truly a pathetic performance.
As I've said before, the only rescue possible for your "theory" is a complete discard followed by a re-write by someone who knows considerably more science than you do (like, any at all).
|Date: 2013/09/08 09:20:11, Link|
Brave words indeed coming from one who's "theory" exhibits the flaws he attributes to RM&NS.
We do not know beyond the level of fuzzy (very fuzzy) generalization and metaphor what he means by 'intelligent'. We have no way of testing or falsifying his theory -- a fact the second prong of which he occasionally glories in. (No Gary, your ridiculous brain-damaged Roomba/self-play PacMan hybrid is not a test of your theory.)
Here are six issues involving 'intelligence' which Gary's theory must address, and which it cannot:
1) Is 'intelligence' sufficiently univocal that we can reliably distinguish analogical uses from literal uses?
Are all literal uses 'the same' -- such that they are all susceptible to the same explanation, with the theoretical equivalent of switch or case statements?
2) Is all knowledge learned?
Example: Socrates and the slaveboy uncovering the apparently innate knowledge the the sum of the square of the 2 sides of a right angle equals the square of the hypotenuse?
Example: The case of the inverting spectacles, where a subject wears 'non-removable' glasses that invert the visual content; after some period of time (multiple days), the visual content is no longer inverted to the subject's perception but appears 'right side up'. When the glasses are then removed, a similar time period passes where the subject once again perceives the visual field as inverted and then it once again appears properly 'right side up'.
3) Models do not necessarily reflect the actual underlying process.
One can model, with calculus, the 'flight calculations' required for an osprey to be able to successfully capture, from high flight, a fish swimming under the surface of a body of water. Does this mean the osprey is capable of performing calculus? Does the baseball player calculate the path of the ball he is attempting to catch?
That a process can be modeled with an algorithm does not guarantee that the process in the real world is in fact performed according to that algorithm. [a minimal and trivial proof lies in the simple unarguable fact that multiple algorithms exist to achieve the same programming goal -- take the plethora of sorting algorithms for just one trivial example. So we can model sorting performed using one algorithm with a different algorithm. I am not suggesting that intelligence is an algorithmic process -- this is disputable; I am simply arguing that Gary cannot rely on whatever algorithm he chooses as an accurate reflection of what really happens in the world of biology.]
4) In support of point 1, the issue of 'muscle learning/memory' versus 'intellectual learning/memory'. We can teach a monkey the tai chi forms, but not calculus. We can teach a dog to dance or do yoga, but not calculus. We appear to take different "routes" in learning tai chi and learning history or math. Can and/or should these two very different kinds of learning/knowledge be reduced to the same theoretical explanation? Do they even need to be? Are they both examples of 'intelligence'? Of the same kind or different kinds?
5) Is intelligence quantifiable?
These problems apply whether the answer to 1 is a single univocal meaning of the term, or a set of meanings, each with its own range of phenomena. Relating to #4, are we to use the same quantifications to measure the differing abilities of monkeys or dogs versus humans, who have differing levels of ability to master various subjects, both physical and mental or are there differing measures involved? I.e., is 'intelligence' quantifiable?
6) The problematic of inspiration and insight. What and how can Gary's so-called "theory" do with phenomena such as the drowsing insight that Benzene is formed into a ring of shared electrons or Newtons inspiration by the falling apple? What role(s) do inspiration and insight play in intelligence, of whatever form? Are they the same for differing kinds of intelligence? Are there forms/kinds of intelligence in which inspiration or insight do not play a role?
|Date: 2013/09/08 10:21:16, Link|
Geez you're a self-important twat.
As if you were contributing to science in any way whatsoever.
|Date: 2013/09/09 06:58:23, Link|
So without any 'molecular intelligence' nor any 'cellular intelligence', as he's ruled those out early in his "theory", how on earth can Gary's gibberish 'help' physiology?
Well, doubtlessly in the same way it supplants Darwinian evolution or any of it's elaborated successors, up to the modern theory. I.e., in his dreams, and only there.
He doesn't even have anything to improve on Lamarck's notions, which seem much closer to the asylum Gary emits from than to any actually scientific theory of biological evolution.
Let us not forget, quoted directly from 'the theory':
The bold gives up the game Gary thinks he's playing.
The underline gives up the 'theory' he thinks he has.
Either the 4 'requirements' for 'intelligence' are necessary conditions or they are not. Gary, of course, wants to waffle on this core issue, so he can have it both ways.
|Date: 2013/09/09 08:06:56, Link|
Seconded, with <genteel> enthusiasm!
Shirley Knot and Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo join me in the congratulatory celebrations.
|Date: 2013/09/10 07:29:11, Link|
Noble has ideas and is able to express them.
He is published in peer reviewed and respected journals and has a demonstrated track record of understanding and grappling with issues.
He works in the relevant fields and has received many notable awards.
Gary has delusional fantasies and expresse them in what aspires to be Vogon poetry.
He is unpublished and has no peer reviews of his 'theory'.
He doesn't understand the issues or the base theories from which the issues arise.
He works in an entirely unrelated field and has received kudos for his 'coding skills' from perhaps as many as 5 individuals, none of whom appear to have read or even have an interest in his "theory." (Note that he also does not work in a programming position, so lacks professional experience even in the secondary field where he attempts to express his notions.)
In short, Denis Noble has output, Gary Gaulin has effluent.
|Date: 2013/09/12 07:14:38, Link|
But you did introduce it into this thread, or at least into the relevant sub-portion of the thread in which we are now involved.
Unsurprisingly, of course, since 'butt-hurt' seems to be all you have, or at least all you are willing to discuss.
This is meaningless gibberish -- precisely the writing style we have all objected to since long before your arrival here.
There is no scientific controversy in which you are involved.
You have no science, all you have are desperate attempts to hang off the coat-tails of real scientists. Real scientists who are completely unaware of your existence and who may safely be assumed would be as appalled by your effluent as we here are.
The Ohio Players? All science here, that's for sure -- uh huh uh huh!
Ah, more 'science' from Gary.
|Date: 2013/09/12 08:15:07, Link|
Except, of course, that you have no 'theory' of chemical change or inheritance of variations, and thus no 'theory' to replace the current standard model of biological evolution.
It is interesting to note that insofar as a 'theory of evolution' can be project forward from your effluent, it resembles the sort of 'combining' theory that Mendel's work refuted merged with a sort of new-Lamarckianism.
Except, of course, you don't even have an atom's worth of support for your phrase 'molecular intelligence', as has been repeatedly demonstrated here.
Nor do you have a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for delimiting what is and what is not 'intelligent', as demonstrated by your waffling.
'Two-way causation' won't save you here, it's just a metphorical catchphrase, which you rule out, right?
Subjective and unquantifiable and all that sort of stuff you despise.
|Date: 2013/09/12 08:32:44, Link|
The map is not the territory.
The model is not the thing modeled.
Your model is not based on or derived from biological reality and thus does not reflection biological reality.
Look! My 1/48th scale F-22 model is plastic!
The USA achieves air superiority with plastic fighters!!
Just how many 'stupid pills' did you have to take, Gary?
|Date: 2013/09/12 08:42:32, Link|
And it 'looks to you' like intelligence is digital, memory is ram, forgetting is outside the scope of 'intelligence', and thus, so is remembering a forgotten item.
It 'looks to you' like a theory without any hint of reproduction, let alone descent with variations is 'better' than modern evolutionary theory and should replace it.
It 'looks to you' like an ever-changing 40 page document is 'better' than peer-reviewed science.
It 'looks to you' as if your references to various cognitive scientists and biologists means they must be supportive of your 'work' -- or would be if only they knew of it.
Many things look various ways to you Gary -- but that's a flaw in your sight, not in what you are looking at.
You need not record such absurdities in such strained and incoherent prose as you are prone to.
The world doesn't need any more Vogon Poet wannabes.
|Date: 2013/09/12 08:51:21, Link|
It takes a very special sort of self-absorbed narcissistic incompetence to rely on commercial software and no versioning system or external backup to do what Gary does.
Free hint for the thinking impaired, Gary:
There are open source packages that run on virtually every version of virtually every operating system that serve up all the functionality (and dysfunctionality) of Microsoft Office.
This includes the ability to open, edit, and save files.
That would solve your immediate local problem (poverty).
Offsite storage plus versioning control have been recommended to you before -- Git and GitHub are all you need, and they're free at the level you require.
But of course, you know better. So why don't you code up a VB app to open, edit, and save your masterpiece?
Shouldn't take you long, now that you've got "intelligence" licked. Heck, program up a programmer and a code generator and let them do the work. [/roflmao]
|Date: 2013/09/12 12:16:14, Link|
May I suggest The Onion?
Or perhaps a letter describing the submission, perhaps along with a short form of the Abstract, to F&SF's "Probability Zero" column?
|Date: 2013/09/13 09:33:59, Link|
What's your beef with generalization, anyway?
'Spawn' in your example is a generalization, as is 'salmon'.
As is 'swim'.
In fact, you can't communicate with extensive use of generalizations.
Ah, comes the dawn -- you can't communicate, therefore you object to generalizations.
Can your "theory" explain the hatching behavior of annual Rivulins, and how the same behavior emerged in both South American annuals and African annuals?
[The behavior is this -- the fish lay their eggs in the substrate. In the dry season, the substrate dries out along with the eggs, which are in a state of developmental pause. When the rainy season begins, most of the eggs hatch. Some don't, but hatch on a second wetting. Some don't hatch until a third wetting.
Thus, the species can withstand 'false starts' to the actual rainy season when the pool is once again filled and the ecological niche occupied by the fish is once again available.]
Biology has an easy, straightforward, 'no intelligence required' answer. Your nonsense can't even decide whether molecules are intelligent or not.
|Date: 2013/09/13 09:44:50, Link|
He has to take this sort of approach.
His "theory" has no mechanisms or even acknowledgement of inheritance or the introduction of variability into a population.
He wants to replace the Darwinian model, as elaborated into modern evolutionary theory, with his 40 page non-model.
This is doubtlessly why he is so insistent on hanging on to the notion of 'molecular intelligence' even though he rules it out as failing to exhibit 2 of the 4 required features of 'intelligence' in his special sense of the term.
Without that to fall back on, he has nothing that applies to populations across time.
Of course, he thinks we think individuals evolve across their lifetime. (Perhaps 'thinks' is being overgenerous...)
|Date: 2013/09/14 06:24:59, Link|
Since you have your [metaphorical and generalized] model already to go, surely you can map either or both, of the concrete examples presented to you onto your model.
Show for each stage in your model what portion of the entire concrete process is covered by your generalization.
Why should we adopt your "theory" and it's associated model if it both violates the grounds you set with your complaints about evolutionary theory and cannot be used to explain phenomena that evolutionary theory manages to explain quite handily?
It's your job to convince us, not our job to try to fit already explained facts into a generalization digram that is a metaphor for the processes you think you've described.
You won't because you can't because you have no theory and your diagram has zero explanatory power. Nor any basis in the real world, as has been repeatedly shown.
|Date: 2013/09/14 10:33:52, Link|
But according to your generalization, genes have cognitive ability?
The only way that could be true would be if there were such a thing as (literal) 'molecular intelligence'.
But you've already thrown that under the bus by 'showing' that chemical behavior does not require a 'theory of intelligence' nor does it meet all 4 necessary criteria for 'intelligence' in your special sense of the term.
So how about you explain where and how intelligence, in the sense of your "model" is involved in inheritance, where in the genes we find RAM and so forth.
Then how genes are 'involved in' "intelligence" -- or even, what specifically and non-metaphorically you mean by that absurd claim.
Then you can explain how learned behaviors can be passed along genetically [hint: Larmackism has been conclusively refuted, as has Lysenkoism].
Then you can explain whether your 4 criteria are necessary or not.
|Date: 2013/09/14 10:37:05, Link|
Surprise surprise Gary -- that research has been done, and was, in fact, necessary to do. We have a theory that explains how ice crystals grow.
You have an assertion that chemical behavior requires intelligence in order to exist. Except, of course, your "theory" tries to have it both ways -- it both is and is not intelligent, depending on just where in your document one looks. Which is it, Gary? Have you identified 4 necessary conditions for intelligence or not?
Where is "molecular intelligence"?
Are 'binding energy' or 'activation energy' terms of cognition or expressions of a small subset of natural laws which exist and operate without intelligence?
|Date: 2013/09/14 11:51:06, Link|
So this wasn't an objection?
You agree that genes don't have anything to do with cognition and that learned behaviors are not inherited?
Then what do you propose as your"theory'"s answer to the question of how salmon wind up successfully spawning upstream from where they live the bulk of their lives?
How does your "theory" account for the behavior of the eggs of certain annual fish in both Africa and South America -- entirely different genera of fish?
You are apparently worse at thinking than reading and worse at reading than writing. And worse at writing than anyone, anywhere, ever.
|Date: 2013/09/14 12:05:46, Link|
No, Gary, we understand that different sciences are different.
WE were not the ones scoffing that somebody might even do something as ridiculous as studying the behavior of ice crystal formation -- you were. I merely pointed out how scientifically wrong you were.
YOU are the one who continues to attempt (and fail) to co-opt vast branches of science within the confused purview of the wibble you call your "theory".
To attempt to add a tiny bit of clarification to your massive confusion:
We are perfectly comfortable claiming we understand how cognitive structures are inherited. WE, unlike you, do not confuse the issue with the behavior of those structures, knowing that they are discreet. WE do not rely on outmoded and disproven nonsense such as Lamarckism or Lysenkoism, which you seem to have absorbed as your 'theory' of "molecular intelligence."
Why would anyone be so confused as to think that one required a 'cognitive model', or better, a model of cognition, in order to explain inherited behavior or the existence of cognitive structures?
One might as well assert that one required a theory of aircraft manufacture, and a full and complete set of blueprints and explicit instructions for the construction of Boeing commercial airliners in order to explain the existence and function of flight 666 to HELsinki airport on Friday, September 13. There is no direct functional relationship between the two (particularly as the Finnish airline is likely to be flying Airbus, but that's a side laugh -- even if they were using Boeing aircraft for the flight, there is no necessary relationship between the manufacture of the craft and the scheduling and use of the aircraft).
You remain terminally confused about all aspects of what is and is not covered by evolutionary theory and also by all aspects of what is and is not covered or explained by your "theory". Have you or have you not identified 4 necessary criteria for what you call 'intelligence'? Do those criteria support or reject the concept of 'molecular intelligence'?
Is 'intelligence' even in your special [short bus] usage of the term required to explain inherited behavior?
Is spawning far upstream specific freshwater streams a learned behavior for salmon?
Is diapause of eggs a learned function of the annuals of Africa and South America?
How would you know?
Why would we abandon the theoretic frameworks that currently explain these things quite satisfactorily, and perhaps even more importantly, generate new and generally productive questions and areas of research within and at the bounds of the current theoretical frameworks for your tedious nonsense that does not even rise to the level of hypothesis, let alone theory?
You are not able to explain anything outside the scope of your ridiculous simulation, which is not even a simulation of a living thing. You have nothing to generate new and fruitful areas of research. You have no concept of what the proper scope and bounds of a theoretical framework might be or of which theoretical framework might hold your effluent.
You have nothing of any value, let alone something sufficiently robust and well-supported as to warrant consideration of 'replacing' any part of any existing science or theory or theoretical framework.
Prove me wrong -- work out, entirely within the scope of your diagram and your 'theory' the explanation of salmon spewing behavior and the explanation for the diapause phenomenon in the spawning and egg development of the annual killifish of Africa and South America.
You won't because you can't because you don't have the necessary tools at any level of conceptualization to even begin to do so.
|Date: 2013/09/14 15:08:30, Link|
But you don't have a 'molecular intelligence' explanation.
Your vaunted "theory" waffles over whether or not there is such a thing.
On the most straightforward reading [which is twisty and agonizing enough], you deny that chemical behavior [which includes molecular behavior, you know] shows all 4 necessary criteria for being judged 'intelligent'.
Now it's up to you to fix your "theory" either by dropping the pretense that you have 4 necessary conditions or by dropping the pretense that there is such a thing as 'molecular intelligence'.
But since you have now come out as explicitly as can be expect as being a Lamarckian, you have far bigger problems then merely justifying 'molecular intelligence' -- that's just a sub-problem in the whole mess.
That you adopt a Lamarckian stance, and somehow manage to see it as an 'improvement' over current biology is more than enough to warrant simply laughing and pointing at you. You're a tedious clown with a "theory" of no merit whatsoever. [And do please note that you do not acquire merit for your theory by pointing at Trehub and others amongst your heroes -- they would be as aghast at your 'work' as the rest of us in the reality-based community. On the merits, you're a tedious self-obsessed clown with nothing whatever to offer either biology or cognitive science.]
|Date: 2013/09/15 06:55:57, Link|
And yet you are forced to accept that there is no 'self learning', no 'intelligence' in your special sense of the term, involved in the self-assembly of ice crystals -- just brute physics and chemistry.
You attempt to generalize, analogize, and use a metaphor of 'molecular intelligence' to get around the indisputable non-intelligent and non-guided (by intelligence) behavior of physical entities and systems. You try to have it both ways, but you contradict yourself in the process.
'Molecular intelligence'? No such thing.
But much more to the point, why should anyone accept that there is some sort of literal learning going on, that is inherited, in either of the 2 examples currently under discussion?
There is no need for a 'cognitive model' or "theory of intelligence" to handle these cases. No more generalization or metaphor (in fact, considerably fewer) than are present in your "theory". No problems to be solved and no fruitful new lines of research suggested by your work.
Again, it should be simple for you to prove me/us wrong -- work through the stages of your 'model' showing how each is present and involved, and both necessary and sufficient, to account for salmon spawning and diapause in egg development of the annual killifish of 2 different continents.
You won't because you can't because your "theory" is junk. Not even junk science, just junk -- not science at all.
|Date: 2013/09/15 07:17:24, Link|
Followed a few posts later by:
Lest we forget where and how the latest kerfuffle over Gary's delusions began, here are the two core posts from Gary.
We see that generations of individuals comprising a species, a population, over time 'learn' the same way that an individual within the species learns.
We see that learned behavior is inherited.
We see that Gary is a loon.
As I said back then (page 240 of this thread), Gary has no choice but to take this Lamarckian, Lysenkoist approach because he has overgeneralized the concepts of 'intelligence' and 'learning' -- he has transformed them into metaphors.
He is caught between a rock and a hard place -- he can't do without 'molecular intelligence' because he then has nothing to function across generations. He can't have a concept of 'molecular intelligence' because, on his own grounds and his own statements, chemical systems, do not meet all 4 of his necessary criteria for being called 'intelligent'.
He is now trying to distract away from the manifest absurdity of his so-called 'theory' by whining about his finances, how horribly he is treated by 'the establishment' and how Stalinist his 'enemies' are. [BTW Gary, you do know that Lysenko was a Stalin favorite, right?]
So he uses the very forms he objects to in others -- generalization, metaphor, and of course, projection of his own fantasies and delusions on those who have the temerity to not instantly accept his word and his "theory" as satisfactory replacements for modern evolutionary theory.
Gary will go to extreme lengths to avoid discussing the actual content and implications of his 'work', his 'efforts'. Much greater lengths than actual engagement would require, but of course, much safer as it leaves his precious unsullied by the hands of those he is merely attempting to uplift to his exalted level of brilliance and insight. Or so he seems to believe, i.e., he is massively delusional but clever in a very self-serving and anti-intellectual fashion.
Sadly, his "theory" doesn't even rise to the level of clever.
|Date: 2013/09/15 08:16:26, Link|
Gary, give up on the 'generalization' accusation.
Everything in your "theory" is a generalization -- 'intelligence', 'molecule', 'cause', etc.
It is not a flaw to use generalization, concrete specifics are useless for expressing a theory as such. Yes, the theory is generalized from a set of concrete specifics, but the theory represents the general case.
Get over yourself.
Now, here are a few challenges to your nonsensical notion of 'molecular intelligence'. Show some spine and address them or admit you've not got what you think you've got.
1) Given that over the course of n years (nominally 7) every atom in the human body is replaced, how is it that a molecule remembers even when some or all of its atoms have been replaced?
2) Given the same condition, how is it that atoms that are 'swapped out' so to speak of a molecule do not change the 'learned behavior' of the molecules they are 'swapped into'?
3) Even if, or especially if, the atoms which make up the molecule remain the same over time, why is it that a woman has to continue to have her 'permanent wave' redone over the relatively short term?
4) Why do men and women continue to need their hair cut to the desired length? Why don't we have Laurie Anderson's 'mechanical trees that grow to their full height then cut themselves down'?
5) Why does inheritance follow Mendelian laws rather than the 'blending' behavior assumed prior to Mendel's work? Particularly, how does Gary account for the the reappearance of the 'base characteristics' in the second generation? Red flowered species crossed with white flowered species to produce pink flowered species will generate predictable proportions of red flowered and white flowered individuals in the generation following the pink. Why? How?
6) What happens when two individuals who have learned different behaviors breed? What determines the behavior inherited by the child?
|Date: 2013/09/15 08:40:23, Link|
Oh, yes, far more important than answering the many challenges to your "theory". Telling us about your software of choice is a 'must', clarifying and defending your 'theory' is just one of those things that doesn't really need to be done.
We're all just hanging on the edges of our seats, desperate to know just what software you're using to produce your effluent.
Pfeh. Anything to avoid coming to grips with the issues, right Gary?
Ditto for your whining about incorporation and other legal fees. Who cares?
The 'work' you have done so far was done without benefit of a lab or a corporation. The work still to be done is a long, LONG way away from needing the kind of legal infrastructure you would prefer to see as the reasonable next step.
But hey, a distraction is a distraction, and that's all you really need right now, right? Just wave your hands to distract us from the questions you can't answer, the challenges that bring your "theory" to light as non-scientific nonsense.
|Date: 2013/09/15 09:43:27, Link|
You'd do better to take a few tutorials on basic biology and basic modern evolutionary theory.
That you still carry on with the absurdity that an individual evolves over its lifetime is sufficient to warrant the judgement that you are an illiterate in biology and evolution.
Your drawings don't matter. The plethora of errors in your 'theory' do.
|Date: 2013/09/15 11:18:02, Link|
Won't do you as much good as the first three.
Actually, you should be taking tutorials on basic logic and a staged series of courses on English and how to write well.
Take the language and writing courses first, they'll help you grasp the rest of the remedial work you so desperately need.
|Date: 2013/09/16 07:13:10, Link|
One can at least determine from Darwin's premise what the feature of the universe were that he was examining and seeking to explain.
You don't even off that much -- your 'premise' is useless without some determination of what class or classes of 'certain features of the universe' qualify as targets of your investigation and which are ruled out. These do not need to be precise -- this is, after all, a generalization -- but they do need to allow one to succeed more often than not in categorizing the features of the universe as amongst or not amongst those of interest to your theory.
Given that that level of details is strikingly absent, you got nothing. In abundance.
|Date: 2013/09/16 09:27:37, Link|
Why is it rubbish?
The premise as you presented it describes the general category of 'living things' and the category of 'reproduction' -- via the term 'related'.
So the reproduction of living things is, at minimum, the phenomenon under consideration.
With the title of the work being 'Origin of Species', one might safely consider the premise to be the origin of species out of the reproduction of living things.
Why is that rubbish?
What makes you consider it less precise than your own generalization "certain features of the universe"?
|Date: 2013/09/16 09:32:31, Link|
Worth repeating, particularly since you have stated that the spawning behavior of salmon and the diapause of African and South American killifish eggs are within the scope of the "certain features of the universe".
And it remains the case that you do not have a theory of 'molecular intelligence' and, in fact, rule it out in your vaunted document. Of course, you waffle by including it back in, but that contradicts the stance that there are 4 necessary criteria for 'intelligence'.
So again, you got nothing. Not a 'theory', not even a 'hypothesis'. Insofar as you might claim to, you lack the conceptual tools to account for the phenomena which have been raised in challenge to your boastful claims.
|Date: 2013/09/16 09:38:42, Link|
Here is a list of six items that it is clear your "theory" cannot account for. Some of these items falsify your "theory".
It is your job to refine and/or modify your theory to eliminate the falsifications and to include the ability to account for these items. Or explicitly exclude some or all of these from the set of "certain features of the universe" that you are attempting to explain.
1) Given that over the course of n years (nominally 7) every atom in the human body is replaced, how is it that a molecule remembers even when some or all of its atoms have been replaced?
2) Given the same condition, how is it that atoms that are 'swapped out' so to speak of a molecule do not change the 'learned behavior' of the molecules they are 'swapped into'?
3) Even if, or especially if, the atoms which make up the molecule remain the same over time, why is it that a woman has to continue to have her 'permanent wave' redone over the relatively short term?
4) Why do men and women continue to need their hair cut to the desired length? Why don't we have Laurie Anderson's 'mechanical trees that grow to their full height then cut themselves down'?
5) Why does inheritance follow Mendelian laws rather than the 'blending' behavior assumed prior to Mendel's work? Particularly, how does Gary account for the the reappearance of the 'base characteristics' in the second generation? Red flowered species crossed with white flowered species to produce pink flowered species will generate predictable proportions of red flowered and white flowered individuals in the generation following the pink. Why? How?
6) What happens when two individuals who have learned different behaviors breed? What determines the behavior inherited by the child?
To refine this last point, do you consider male pattern baldness a 'learned' behavior under your "theory"? It would appear from various of your claims over the past few pages that you should, but one never can tell with you. If you do, kindly take note of the fact that male pattern baldness is inherited through the maternal line. This would be a concrete example of two individuals who have 'learned' different behaviors -- how does your 'theory' account for the sex-linked nature of the behavior and its inheritance along the maternal line?
|Date: 2013/09/16 10:09:34, Link|
This is ridiculous even for you Gary.
No one is claiming, nor is it implied in my post, that Darwin discovered reproduction.
What was claimed was that Darwin's premise, as you stated it, included sufficient information to narrow done the universe to well-identified or identifiable items -- living beings and their reproduction behavior. Taking into account the title of the work, one may safely infer that Darwin's proposal is that the origin of species lies within the realm of living beings and is tied specifically to their reproduction.
Your 'premise' does no such thing -- it lacks all specificity, leaving us to query you as to which features of the universe, characterized in what fashion and with respect to what characteristics are covered under "certain features of the universe". Otherwise, we have to ask you, for every phenomenon in the universe, whether it is included or not.
You have identified precious few non-trivial items as examples of what your theory is intended to explain. We can infer a few more characteristics from your various braggadocio posts. You intend for your "theory" to replace the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory. You intend to include (while simultaneously excluding) something called 'molecular intelligence' and use it for such phenomena as inherited learning, spawning behavior of salmon, and diapause in certain genera of annual fish.
There is no way to derive any of those phenomena as being what is intended by your "certain features of the universe" other than the triviality that these are indeed certain features of the universe. So are things you rule out in your document, such as ionic chemical reactions.
Now how about you provide an explanation, in terms of your diagram and your "theory" just how these things work. Then work on the six item list I quoted forward to keep it current.
You won't because you can't because your "theory" is no such thing. And is incoherent nonsense to boot.
|Date: 2013/09/16 14:09:00, Link|
Well, in the spirit of presenting absurd notions that Gary has admitted to, we have the above.
Gary's a Lamarckian, or perhaps a Lysenkoist.
|Date: 2013/09/16 14:50:51, Link|
If you can't tell us what you mean by 'intelligent' and 'intelligent cause' then you have nothing to offer science.
And you have repeatedly demonstrated that you indeed cannot tell us, or anyone, what you mean by 'intelligence' or 'intelligent cause'.
You identify 4 presumably necessary features or characteristics of intelligence. You rule out intelligence at the chemical reaction level because only 2 of the 4 characteristics are displayed, not all 4.
So you don't know what 'intelligence' is, nor cause, nor 'intelligent cause'.
When you start in on this bs that somebody else has to do better than you or your effluent wins by default, we know you are desperate.
You've been given ample examples to use to show us with your diagram and "theory" how intelligence and intelligent causation apply. You continue to run away from even making the attempt, preferring to whine about bullying or the alleged inability or inadequacy of other persons or theories to address terms from your fantasy notions.
That's not how science works. Step up and argue your points or abandon them.
It is pretty clear that you have nothing that you have not 'borrowed' from others, and have made such ill use of those things that you have nothing at all to offer science.
Least of all biology.
|Date: 2013/09/16 14:54:19, Link|
BTW, your assertion is wildly absurd for another reason.
Modern science consists of a great deal more than biology.
Do you seriously propose that quantum physics requires an explanation of "intelligence" or "intelligent cause"?
Astronomy? Astrophysics? Geology? Chemistry? Thermodynamics?
You are as as stupid as you are arrogant. Your work reflects this quite well, and in prose suitably crafted to expose both.
|Date: 2013/09/16 15:58:46, Link|
Modern science doesn't need Hawking to continue his work?
There aren't gobs of unanswered questions and genuine problems in the fields I listed?
You, sir, are a moron.
And yes, you have not ever, anywhere explicitly given operational definitions of 'intelligence' or 'intelligent cause'. Or at least none that you haven't contradicted shortly after writing, and in the same document.
These are, or should be, operational terms in your "theory". That you leave them vague, equivocal, and operationally undefined is par for the course for your surrealist writing style and your acid-overdose style of thinking.
That you think you have defined them leads me to the obvious remark: link or it never happened.
Not a link to your god-awful paper, whatever version you happen to be up to. A link to the specific location for each definition. (You do know what a definition is, don't you?)
And Denis Noble would projectile vomit at the very idea of association with you, were he to be made aware of you. He scrapes better 'thinkers' than you off his shoes after a walk through the sheep fields. He flunks brighter people than you when he teaches courses.
Come back when you've got a fraction of the awards and degrees and honors he has.
But of course this is all part of your schtick -- steal by reference the glories, and give a nod to those who are doing actual science to hide under that non-existent association with your scientific betters.
How about you get cracking on providing some of the 'explanations' your "theory" is allegedly capable of?
You won't because you can't because it isn't -- but it would lots of LULz to see you try.
|Date: 2013/09/16 16:47:55, Link|
He gets to demand that other people provide things that he is not obligated to provide, that other people provide justifications and explanations that he couldn't provide if his life depended them.
Gary's just a bad joke, currently occupied by being an internet chew toy. It exceeds his abilities, but provides laughs to those who know some things about the real world -- the one he apparently abandoned decades ago.
His foot-stomping hissy fits are just part of the act -- serious though he thinks he is when he attempts to engage.
|Date: 2013/09/16 17:45:48, Link|
Sure. Except, of course, that you are notan academic. Concerns over whether or not I am, as that would lead to ad hominem arguments from you. There's a reason I post without a name.
What is so amusing about this little kerfuffle is how easily you could prevent, or at least dramatically reduce the number of, the insults. All you would have to do is what any genuine scientist would be eager to do -- address the questions and challenges that have been raised against your silly little "theory."
Remove the contradiction that invalidates your work and all your claims about 'molecular intelligence.'
Give up the Lamarckian crap -- or provide sufficient reasons to overcome all the fasifications that have been done of that failed notion.
But instead you would rather whine and preen, and keep up the pretense of doing scientific work. Surely you know that's why we mock you? That and the inherent absurdity of your 40 page 'masterpiece of course.
|Date: 2013/09/16 18:13:46, Link|
Incoherent and irrelevant.
Anything to avoid actually discussing or supporting your silly little "theory." As per usual.
|Date: 2013/09/16 20:43:31, Link|
And still, anything, anything at all to avoid confronting the actual issues -- the questions, challenges, and contradictions we've asked, raised, and pointed out, respectively.
Anything to avoid trying to do actual scientific communication.
But, then, you're not a scientist, so why assume you should act like one?
|Date: 2013/09/17 07:25:25, Link|
Burden of proof remains on you, Gary, no matter how burdensome you find it.
Your logic continues to fail -- if the only ones remaining in this thread are the ones who are looking to bully, troll, control, etc., which of those categories do you fail into?
You're certainly not doing science.
You're certainly not even stepping up to attempt to meet the burden of proof that accompanies the creation and distribution of a grand new "theory".
So are you here to bully or troll or control?
Or are you here looking to be bullied, be trolled, or be controlled?
I think we can rule out the latter 3, given your objections.
Given the particular stances you've taken, you seem to be here to control. Control the discussions, control how science is perceive and performed, how research grants are granted, how society judges the value of science and scientists, and how science ought to apportion 'burden of proof'.
Sadly for you, you are no more successful at those tasks than you are at science or meeting your own burden of proof.
tsk, tsk, tsk. An entire lie wasted on a quixotic quest of no merit whatever.
And whiny about it to boot -- what a petulant pathetic poseur you are, to be sure.
|Date: 2013/09/17 07:57:00, Link|
You bring this on yourself Gary.
We all know you fancy yourself a Sheldon Cooper, but you lack his knowledge, his scientific insights and skills, and worst of all, even his social skills.
The burden of proof is inescapably on you -- even if the entire scientific edifice of biology were to collapse overnight, your "theory" would be no closer to acceptance, no clearer or more coherent or more useful than it is now.
You would still need to prove to people that it can do what it claims, that it is internally consistent, that it maps coherently and consistently onto the real world, that it generates fruitful lines of inquiry, that real world examples can in fact be explained by it.
Biology is no more likely to collapse overnight than chemistry is, which raises, rather than lowers, the burden of proof on you and the height of the bar of scrutiny you must pass.
But as already noted, you will go to any lengths, any lengths at all [save only leaving] to avoid actual engagement on any of the issues, problems, contradictions, or challenging examples that have been raised to you and your "theory."
We all know this, even you -- although you do not appear to act in ways described by your theory. You keep failing and yet not changing the way you approach the problem. You're not learning, not making 'good guesses'. Nor even bad ones -- you're stuck in a rut of pointlessness, which seems to be exactly the target you were aiming for.
|Date: 2013/09/17 08:51:05, Link|
But you are neither involved in nor contributing to that project. It may well produce significant scientific results.
And they haven't ponced in here looking for input on an incoherent 40 page screed and a diagram that contradicts as well as support various portions of the so-called 'theory' contained therein.
You have, and that's what we're looking at. We've provided input at all levels across the span and scope of your wibble. We've provided examples that you agree fall under the scope of your theory, and we've asked you to show us how -- in as much detail as possible.
You've not only refused, you've treated the responses as somehow 'not your problem', you've insisted that we must provide a theory superior to yours, yet rejected the clearly superior alternatives that lie within the range of the science of biology. You won't define your operational terms ("intelligence" and "intelligent cause" most notably).
And you whine about bullying and persecution, expending far more effort than it would take to actually begin to engage on the questions, issues, and challenges to your "theory". You've ignored the blatant contradiction in your work and you continue to rely on the concept you've both rejected and accepted.
Not everyone here is an academic, nor are you. Yet you presume to know better than any or all of us, without needing to demonstrate even the beginners level of knowledge the non-biologists here have mustered up, without breaking a sweat, against your nonsense.
Give up the pretentious whining and engage the issues.
|Date: 2013/09/17 08:54:17, Link|
All science needs to do is show how you are wrong, it need not provide a superior alternative in the way you seem to think.
In actual science, "I don't know yet" is a superior answer to a logically contradictory and entirely unsupported and undefended pseudo-theory spread by an internet crank.
That's what you are, that's what you've got, and there we are.
YOUR job is to defend your theory. The failure of other theories, or the non-existence of other theories, is no defense of yours. Yours lives or dies on the merits -- being without merit, it dies.
|Date: 2013/09/17 09:53:32, Link|
Oh please -- once you have an internet connection, posting here is free. So your whining about money is a complete non-issue.
No one here, least of all I, stands to lose any money if you succeed or gain any money if you fail.
Do take note that you have not, ever, defined 'the very basics of the process', let alone 'the process' in question.
All you do is toss around the terms "intelligence" and "intelligent cause". Until you clarify by what you mean by those terms, it is pointless for anyone to engage in presenting you with an explanation of anything they might think.
But more importantly, it does not matter if no one else can explain this 'process' -- no one else here is claiming to, let alone claiming to have a world-shaking, paradigm-overthrowing 'theory' that explains your undefined terms. No one here is claiming to have a new 'theory' that renders the neoDarwinian modern evolutionary synthesis irrelevant.
But you are -- so it is on you to prove it or STFU.
Not whine, not petulantly stomp your feet, not insist that others provide explanations.
We expect you to provide examples and explanations, within the context of your 'theory'.
We've even given you examples, some of which at least you have acknowledged fall within the purview of your 'theory'. Interestingly enough, for those that do meet your criteria, we have explanations from those 2 generalizations you so dislike -- RM&NS.
You have not shown how your generalization is superior. Heck, you haven't even shown how your generalization works for those 2 cases (salmon spawning and diapause).
It took us 240 odd pages (some quite odd indeed) to get to the point where we had a fairly clear statement that exposes you as a Lamarckian. Is it going to take that many more to get you to fix the contradiction in your own theory? You both reject and accept the concept of 'molecular intelligence', insisting, on the one hand that no theory of intelligence applies there because chemistry does not display all 4 of your necessary criteria. Yet you turn around and allow as how maybe there is 'intelligence' at play there after all. And proceed to rely on 'molecular intelligence' to do all the heavy lifting for providing explanations for those phenomena you deign to even acknowledge as needing an explanation.
You deserve every bit of mockery you get -- not least because mockery is the only level on which you will engage.
"I don't know" is clearly a better answer in general than anything found in your theory. We have not seen a single solitary phenomenon from the real world actually explained by your theory.
That's not defamation, that's brute fact.
That you are clueless about what the theory of evolution actually holds is not defamation, it is brute fact, supported by your contention that individuals evolve over the course of their individual lifespan.
No defamation, just facts in those few places you are factual yourself, and mockery everywhere else. Again, because you avoid facts and only engage on the level of mockery.
On your own head be it.
But do please stop pretending that we are dragging you down to your financial ruin. Even if that is more plausible than your 'theory', it has zero plausibility in the real world.
Also, kindly stop the pretense that it is you we are 'defaming' -- it is your ideas, your "theory", and your behavior on the internet we attack. The ad hominems seem to come solely from you. Reflect on that for a moment or three.
|Date: 2013/09/17 10:10:41, Link|
Anything, anything at all, to avoid having to put your theory to use in actually explaining anything.
I remember Driver's theory. You have apparently been too busy whining to follow along and pay attention.
But then you don't need to when all you are about is distraction after distraction after distraction, rather than actually, you know, using your "theory" to explain some real world phenomenon.
And, btw, Driver's theory doesn't matter -- this isn't a competition where the absence of an alternative means that your work prevails. If your work can't do the job, and it clearly cannot, we are better off with "I don't know yet". But to get even to that point, we would have to have mutual agreement on just what are the phenomena in question. Until you provide some definitions, that can't happen. So you lose.
|Date: 2013/09/17 11:23:55, Link|
Gary, you have 'disproven' your own "theory" simply by embedding a logical contradiction in it. No theory can survive logical incoherence, and your "theory" is logically incoherent. Based on your own words, quite clearly spelled out.
And it appears irremediable -- you can't drop your 4 criteria for 'intelligence' but equally you can't drop 'molecular intelligence' which only satisfies at most 2 of the 4 necessary criteria. And so is not 'intelligence', or at least not intelligence in the sense you attempt to work out and model.
On your own head be it -- your theory relies on an internal contradiction.
It would be worth the LULz to see how you were to proceed to attempt to explain any biological phenomenon on the assumption that your logical flaw could be remedied. But we can have every confidence that you will not attempt that, because you know that even without the contradiction built in at the very foundation, your "theory" is vacuous.
Prove me wrong -- explain something, anything biological, using your current "theory" and diagram.
Or prove me right by continuing to attempt to distract, shift the burden of proof, whine, stamp your feet, hand-wave, and so on. Anything to avoid coming to grips with an actual test of your "theory", right?
|Date: 2013/09/18 06:57:29, Link|
You keep trying this shift of the burden of proof.
It keeps failing.
What does your 'theory of intelligence/intelligent cause' tell you the next thing and 'intelligence' would do is or should be?
Why are you not doing that?
Your ridiculous notions are disproved in multiple ways -- your 'theory' is built on a contraction.
And your theory does not account for your own behavior.
As we've explained before, repeatedly, the behavior of your little "simulation" is irrelevant to whether or not you have a theory of 'intelligence' and/or 'intelligent cause'. Your 'simulation' is not based on any sort of real world biological entity. There is no reason to suppose that the 'behavior' programmed to occur in the 'simulation' is, in fact, an actual occurrence of 'intelligence' or 'intelligent cause'. You have consistently failed to provide meaningful operational definitions for those terms.
So you're wrong again Gary. The burden of proof is on you.
And do note that you've spent considerably more time and energy attempting to shift that burden than would have been required to step up to the task and at least demonstrate work towards meeting it. But you'd rather whine and pout amidst your triumphal outbursts of how significant your work is if only people would realize it.
|Date: 2013/09/18 07:17:00, Link|
Let's try a slightly different approach.
Why is the burden of proof now on us, Gary?
Was it ever on you? What part?
What has occurred to shift the burden of proof to us?
Please be detailed in your response -- we know very clearly and very well that you sincerely believe that the burden of proof is on us. Why do you believe that? What are the grounds of the belief, i.e., why do you think that belief is true?
|Date: 2013/09/18 07:22:14, Link|
And another branch of alternative approaches to getting something other than whining, hand-waving, and avoidance of the issues out of Gary.
Why do you think a computer model provides an 'operational definition'? What, in plain English, is your operational definition for 'intelligence' and 'intelligent cause'?
What about your computer model or the 'operational definition' you believe it provides is scientifically useful?
Scientifically useful for what?
Which science or sciences will find it useful?
What new lines of inquiry will be opened up by this definition?
What current problems do you believe can be addressed by this definition rather than the current approach(es) used by the science(s) who you assert will benefit from this definition?
And again, why can these 'operational definitions' be provided in the form of computer source code, but not plain English?
If they cannot, why? If they can, please provide them in plain English, or something as close to that as your writing ability permits.
|Date: 2013/09/18 08:20:14, Link|
Believe me, I know far more about programming and modeling in software than you ever will.
The problem here is 'model what? Your document won't do, because it does not provide the needed operational definitions of 'intelligence' and 'intelligent cause'.
There is nothing there to model.
Again, prove me wrong by pointing to specific things in your model and where they are reflected in the computer code.
We all understand how you want to continue to drive the discussion (and I use the word as loosely as possible) over to your software and away from your 40 page "theory" and its claims. But your software is meaningless and useless without a sound theory as its underpinning.
We are interested in focusing on the underpinnings, which you continue to fail to provide.
But really, this is just a higher level generalization of a much deeper problem exposed by your reliance on a computer model.
The model is only as good as its foundations, its core concepts, and how well or poorly they map onto reality. Conspicuously missing from [I]all[/I of your work is the grounding in reality.
I can claim that space invaders will arrive in triangular ships, attach Earth, and be defeated by ground based weapons firing on your formations. And I can bring forth Space Invaders, the computer game, as my computer model of this. Thus, I have brought forth new and useful information that it is now up to others to disprove or, more usefully, extend.
Except, of course, there's no basis in reality and no way to extend what is presented 'down' to the level of what happens in the real world.
There are no RAM circuits in biology, not in the way you've "modeled" things in your 'simulation'. You simulate none of the organic factors in play in any of the cases of genuine intelligence we may commonly recognize and agree on as occurrences of intelligence (as opposed to analogies and metaphors using the word due to similarities with the actual factual foundational phenomena).
We have provided you a number of phenomena which you have claimed to be represented and explained by your "theory". Yet you have never once attempted to explain how. You steadfastly run away from any attempt to ground your "theory" and your computer 'simulation' in any sort of base reality.
And thus, you fail.
|Date: 2013/09/18 08:22:02, Link|
Sorry, that should be '...firing on their formations...' not '...your formations...'.
Sigh, my kingdom for an edit function.
|Date: 2013/09/18 09:02:40, Link|
There are no such forums.
You've been laughed off of every science-based and/or science-related forum on which you've ponced around touting your "theory".
You've gotten as much or more useful input here as anywhere, and you've ignored it all.
After all, if there were fora friendlier to your claims, why would you be here, rather than there? Only if you were insane would that make sense...
|Date: 2013/09/18 09:06:52, Link|
Pity you've wasted your life to the point where the consequences will impact on others. One feels terribly sorry for your family.
For you, not so much. This is all self-inflicted.
As to the direction that US science is going (as if science were a matter of political boundaries! Good grief!!), its doing just fine without you.
You have quite frequently asserted that science needs what you are up to, that science will benefit from your 'theory'. Yet you turn tail and run whenever you are asked to support those rather outlandish claims.
What benefit would science reap from your work?
How would your work help drive and shape the scientific enterprise, particularly in areas where your work simply doesn't apply (physics, astronomy, chemistry, thermodynamics, biology, pretty much all science in fact).
Your work is fatally flawed by the simultaneous reliance on and impossibility of supporting your notion of "molecular intelligence."
And you know it.
|Date: 2013/09/18 12:55:21, Link|
How on earth would you know anything about academia or what or how science is taught at the university level?
You've made a rather scandalous accusation that I doubt you have even the minimum qualifications to make.
Have you got a Master's degree? A PhD? If you had either, you would realize that the vast majority of the challenges raised against your "theory" and the quality and results of your code are par for the course -- or even rather less.
You would not be permitted, or at least would be strongly discouraged, from proceeding with your "theory" as a master's thesis. Not because of it's content per se, but because of its massive incoherency and lack of a number of requisites.
This is not bullying. This is not new. And this is not something that only happens in science education. The liberal arts, the business fields (accountancy, management, etc) are all vicious in requiring that candidates meet high standards. It is not bullying to point out to a candidate that they do not.
And you certainly do not posses qualifications to 'overturn' or 'overthrow' Mendelian inheritance or the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory. You don't have the qualifications to resurrect Lamarckian notions -- not even in a D&D game played in your basement.
I know this is just another of your standard distraction moves -- anything, anything at all to avoid defending your assertions, your claims, you "theory". But I find it offensive as hell that you pontificate about an arena in which you do not play or even observe. When was the last time you participated in higher education (i.e., beyond high school)?
Based on what you have presented here in this thread, I doubt you've managed a Bachelor's degree, and probably not even an Associates degree.
It is hardly 'bullying' to point this out.
Nor to point out the flaws, errors, and contradictions in your work, up to and including your miserable all-but-absent ability to write standard English.
So, here's the challenge -- with regard to your assertion that 'Academic bullying has made defamation a part of the scientific method now taught as science', prove it.
Prove it or retract it. Or ignore the challenge, which shall count as an implicit admission that you are making things up to make yourself more comfortable with your miserable failures and your manifest, and manifold, shortcomings.
|Date: 2013/09/19 06:49:31, Link|
I think the meaning is captured best in the Sensuous Curmudgeon's immortal
"I don't understand it therefore oogity boogity"
|Date: 2013/09/19 07:57:57, Link|
Why should we pay any attention to your experience?
You are not part of science in any way, shape, or form. You are less a part of science than a freshman who has just declared a major in a science field.
Your experience is hardly evidential -- you're critiquing football without ever having seen, let alone played, the game. As another poster said, your complaining because you've run out onto the football field insisting you be allowed to play Pong along with the other kids in the game -- and be paid for it a comparable rate to the other players.
What evidence do you have, other than your non-existent "experience" to support your outrageous libels?
Present it, or yet again be shown to be the fraud we all know you are.
This is pathetic even for a wannabe.
But you would clearly rather wallow in the slime-pit of false accusations and personal attacks than actually grapple with any of the issues raised about your 'work'.
This is hardly how science is done. It is not how any productive endeavor is conducted.
It is more than abundantly clear by now that you have nothing, are producing nothing of value, and haven't a clue about biology or science in general. [free hint: programming is not science]
If you were a competent coder you should be able to find a job putting your VB skills to work. That you can't only supports the view that you are skilled at nothing but whining about how miserably you are being treated.
|Date: 2013/09/19 08:20:15, Link|
Worth repeating, lest Gary's attempts at distraction push us away from the issues raised against his 'theory' and into his chosen field of whining and complaining.
Explain these Gary. Your 'theory' is alleged to be up to the task. I find that doubtful. You can resolve the issue by beginning to grapple with explaining any or all of these things.
|Date: 2013/09/20 07:00:51, Link|
That's what I find so fascinating about his perverse "theory" -- on the one hand, it absolutely requires intelligence to extend down to the molecular and atomic level. His 4 criteria, on the other hand, claim to establish necessary criteria for intelligence. He then proceeds to acknowledge that molecular behavior meets only 2 of his criteria and thus his '4 necessary criteria' do not all apply at the molecular level, yet there may be intelligence there.
It is typical of his confusion and contradictions except that here it is stunningly clear and, for Gary, well expressed in a single paragraph.
If he pursues details on 'molecular intelligence', he shows that he has not actually identified necessary criteria for 'intelligence' -- and his 'theory' falls apart. If he sticks with his 4 necessary criteria for 'intelligence', he must, perforce, abandon 'molecular intelligence' -- and his 'theory' falls apart. Either fork in his dilemma renders his work vapid and incoherent, at best, a laughable heap of rubble at worst.
Thus, the furious hand-waving, pointless distractions, and libel when he is challenged to actually put his 'theory' to the test in actual real-life situations.
His biggest mistake there was in acknowledging that salmon spawning was explained by 'molecular intelligence' -- suddenly he actually had a real-world biological example bound to the scope of his theory. Now his dilemma is a sharp stick in the guts of his theory -- right where it's been all along.
His second biggest mistake was acknowledging, by direct implication, that he is a Lamarckian. Genes participate in cognition and learned behaviors are inherited.
We might as well cue up a video of Mr. T saying "I pity the fool", for he is clearly a fool, and generous souls might find it in themselves to pity him.
|Date: 2013/09/20 15:49:20, Link|
Someone really needs to challenge him to lay out the logic in syllogism form.
Betcha gobs of money he can't.
|Date: 2013/09/21 06:22:41, Link|
So, no answer to the criticisms of your "theory", no defense raised for your prized (but absurd and error-riddled) notions, no fix for the internal contradiction on which your work is founded.
Just a tired screed pointing to other programmers, Planet Source Code, and the incoherent (and contradictory) claim that teachers need something that works with what they already teach -- like your total replacement of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory with your "theory".
About what we've come to expect. Another round of your favorite game -- 'anything to avoid discussing the "theory", anything at all.'
|Date: 2013/09/22 06:57:32, Link|
Yes, but what he brings to the table is a turd on a sliver platter.
What we bring is the taste and discernment to point that out -- along with a bit of silver polish, instruction on how to properly hold a platter, and quite a bit on how futile it is to polish the turd.
|Date: 2013/09/22 11:10:34, Link|
Of course, you overlook the fact that many here, including myself are or have been involved with bioinformatics.
And we long ago pointed out that you were a delusional fraud, whose theory was founded on contradiction and rife with errors, not least in terms of communication style and ability.
Come back when you've got something more useful than a cascade of 'if-then' statements, something that can actually display emergent properties, and something that includes a set of genuine criteria for 'intelligence'. Especially a set that doesn't require dropping half the list when you try to extend downward to the molecular level. And something that can actually explain things like sex-linked characteristics. Something that can explain why inheritance patterns generally follow Mendelian principles rather than 'blending' as your theory would seem to require -- or imply. Something that's not a reversion to Lamarck and Lysenko.
|Date: 2013/09/22 11:15:45, Link|
Except, of course, that you yourself have denied that molecular interactions display all 4 criteria you deem necessary to judge the presence of 'intelligence'. It's your "theory", it's in your document, and it renders your notion of 'molecular intelligence' self-contradictory.
It is only by the widest stretch of metaphor, the widest stretch of loose analogizing, the one might casually speak of molecules displaying 'memory'. Where is the memory in DNA? How is it stored, updated, read? How does it make 'guesses'? Where and how does it make decisions? How do genes involve themselves in cognition? [You're on record as insisting that they do.]
You're a loon Gary, and we all know it.
You could try proving otherwise by grappling with the issues raised by myself and others, but you'd rather wibble on about your pointless software. Your software no more illustrates or demonstrates the "points" in your "theory" (let alone confirm them) than Space Invaders illustrates and/or demonstrates space warfare, interstellar invasion principles, and planetary defense mechanisms.
|Date: 2013/10/07 08:29:34, Link|
Design = manufacture
ID requires conflating the entirely different processes of design and manufacture. The ID proponents have clearly never been involved in either design or production -- all that design itself produces is designs.
|Date: 2013/10/08 06:57:04, Link|
Yeah, but have you seen the access time?
Speed matters, and he's WAY overdue.
|Date: 2013/10/08 07:01:25, Link|
I think this is (another) very important point.
It is hardly the only place that the ID community abuses the language, and relies on a certain confusion of terminology.
Those of us involved in design and production, in any field, need to point this out and emphasize, repeatedly, that the DI and its various members/supporters/hangers-on are talking through their hats when they use the term 'design'.
They don't mean by it what 'the man on the street' means, and still less what those who design and manufacture for a living mean by it.
|Date: 2013/10/14 14:44:04, Link|
|Date: 2013/10/15 18:29:16, Link|
Well, if you ever stumble across an actual theory of intelligence, we would be happy to discuss it.
As it is, you've demonstrated a persistent avoidance of any discussion at all of your absurd notions.
Do you ever plan on reconciling the contradiction it contains?
Ever plan on identifying specific non-trivial and non-controversial examples of just what features of the universe are best explained by a theory of intelligence?
|Date: 2013/10/16 13:48:49, Link|
We're still waiting for you to provide an operational definition of 'intelligence'.
Then, we'd like you to explain why you think it is "Darwinian Theory"'s job to explain it's operation rather than it's presence. We don't look to evolution or evolutionary theory for chemistry or physics, why are you so convinced we ought to for whatever the heck you mean by 'intelligence'?
Then, of course, there's the absurdity of your apparent insistence that hippocampi are required for 'an intelligent circuit' -- what does that even mean, and how would you justify it?
Given your maunderings about 'molecular intelligence', ought we suppose that you are proposing a hippocampus per molecule?
IOW, same old, same old -- pitiful attempts to deflect the discussion away from your pitiful musings masquerading as a 'theory' of 'intelligence', and the manifold errors and contradictions it contains, onto other targets.
Anything to avoid coming to grips with the inadequacies of your document, right, Gary?
|Date: 2013/10/16 14:56:41, Link|
Pitiful, even for you.
YOU are the only one around here (i.e., on the internet) who is insisting that the theory of evolution is or needs to be a 'theory of everything'.
Then you get petulant, even cranky, when it isn't. You go so far as to double-down on the claim as if it originated from us.
Now let's think for a moment -- surely even you are capable of that? Let's try really hard to see if we can remember what Darwin's masterwork was title, shall we?
Could it be that it was titled something along 'On the Origin of Species'? Why, I do believe so.
And why would anyone think that a book on the origin of species would be or attempt to be a theory of everything?
Similarly, no one is asserting that you 'lack enough faith in the miracle of the "ToE"'. We are asserting that you lack a theory of your own, that your document contains contradictions at its foundations, that your writing commits crimes against the English language sufficient that were language to gain legal support would find you locked away for years and years to come.
And indeed, you are the one parading your own notion ands its "supporting" software around as if it were a religion, and a holy relic (still under construction).
You can't even follow the simple logic whereby we see that an assertion of the necessity of a hippocampus to 'intelligence', whatever you happen to man by that word.
That you fail at logic is hardly a surprise, given your wondrous document and your tortured attempts at prose.
You have been given quite a few objections and challenges to your notion. You have fled from every opportunity to engage with those in good faith, or even in whatever minuscule amount of intelligence you are able to bring to bear.
You are the one who insists that there is such a thing as 'molecular intelligence'. You have been known to purport that this 'insight' is of critical importance to your notion.
Yet you also claim that molecular behavior only exhibits 2 of the 4 characteristics you deem pre-requisites for 'intelligence' in your own special meaning of the term.
Are you ever going to reconcile this contradiction?
Of course not -- that would mean acknowledging that your so-called theory does not possess the sort of world-shaking importance you require it to have.
Your notion cannot account for insight, for temporary failures of memory, for the ability to derive new insights, new knowledge, from logical interconnections with already known facts. Your notion of 'intelligence' cannot even explain how an intelligent being can come up with a theory.
Nor is your notion capable of explaining your own highly counter-productive behavior, as witnessed by your complete lack of success in life or on the web.
But feel free to give it a try. Show me where and how 'molecular intelligence' can be identified and how it fits into your 'theory'.
Tell us what you mean by 'intelligent'. Tell us what 'feature of the universe' are best explained by a 'theory of intelligence'. Give us an explanation, in terms of that 'theory', for at least one such feature.
Of course you won't because you can't because your 'theory' isn't one, doesn't have the concepts or structures to do so, and can safely be dismissed on those grounds alone. Regardless of whatever other theories may or may not be accepted.
"I don't know" is a much better answer than "see Gary's 'theory'". At least it has a chance of being both honest and correct, particularly if the statement originates with you.
Remember, we don't have to show or prove anything to destroy your beautiful nonsense. All we have to do is show that it is nonsense. Which you have aided and abetted for quite some while now as you wander the net looking for your first true believer.
|Date: 2013/10/17 08:10:21, Link|
[quote=GaryGaulin,Oct. 16 2013,14:59]
I want to focus in for a moment on what appear to be the 'core concepts' of your absurdist notion, Gary.
As we can see from the quoted portion, you have painted yourself into quite a tight little corner. In addition to the contradictory stance on 'molecular intelligence', you have committed a full-on error for any theory of intelligence under any of the usual interpretations of that term. To wit, you require any instance of intelligence to be limited to movement systems.
Which means that you have a "'theory' of 'intelligence'" that cannot account for non-movement-based or non-movement-inclusive things such as theories, imagination, the creation of fiction/the telling of stories, planning, predicting, and the whole host of other intelligent activities which are not inherently based on or inclusive of movement.
Give it up, Gary. If your notion of intelligence is so impoverished that it can only deal with necessarily motion-based or necessarily motion-inclusive things in the world, it fails at any and all of the interesting phenomena that fall under the typical meanings of 'intelligence'.
So you fail on 'molecular intelligence' and you fail on human intelligence. How many things move without involving or requiring intelligence? How can you tell? How many phenomena are taken (correctly) to be occurrences of intelligence that do not necessarily involve motion?
It would be funny if it weren't so tragic. It would be tragic if it weren't so funny.
|Date: 2013/10/17 10:18:38, Link|
Specious nonsense. You are not even able to follow a logical argument with standard meanings of the terms.
There is no required or necessary connection between insight, the working out of a theory, the construction of a story, and countless other things, with an explicit speech act. Nor an act of writing. Nor any other motor activity.
Still less can one claim that without motor skills, there can be no intelligence. Witness Stephen Hawking for example.
But even absent such a telling counter to your fantasies, we are quite comfortable asserting that even if acts of intelligence usually do involve some motor activity, the motor activity is neither required nor necessary for the logically (and temporally) prior acts of intelligence -- the creation of the theory, the story, etc.
Binding your 'theory of intelligence' to motor skills puts you at the extreme end of behaviorism *at best*. And there really aren't any behaviorist theories of intelligence.
Not that you have a theory, of course.
But your silly notion is absurd at so many levels, this is merely the 'low hanging fruit' of your idiotic and useless construction of diagram and text.
A theory is not a speech act. A theory logically and temporally precedes any (muscular) speech act, any writing act, or any other motor act you care to name.
Unless, of course, you would care to treat the brain as a muscle? Yours, then, must be particularly flabby and out of shape, it lets you down so often.
|Date: 2013/10/17 11:13:55, Link|
Well duh -- of course he needs muscle activity to be alive. And, arguably, there has to be muscle activity to support the activity of intelligence. But the act of intelligence is not a muscular act; muscles do not play a direct role in intelligence.
But of course all of this is based on attempts to infer from your gibberish exactly what the heck you mean by 'intelligent'. Based on your diagram and insane verbiage, we are, I think, entitled to ask where the muscles are in molecules -- assuming we land on that fork of your contradictory stance on 'molecular intelligence'.
You insist that 'intelligence' in your special sense does not require consciousness. You now appear to be insisting that it does require muscle activity.
Both of those views require far more justification than your mere assertion.
But since you insist your "theory" can explain all the acts of intelligence required to from a theory, here's your challenge. Show it. Show your work. Demonstrate that your theory can explain Stephen Hawking's theory of the phenomenon known as 'Hawking Radiation'. Or Newton's theory of gravity. Or Darwin's theory of the origin of species via random mutation and natural selection. Note that we don't care here whether the theory is correct or not, or whether you agree with it or not. You claim that your 'theory' can explain the intelligence that goes into crafting a theory. I am saying 'put up or shut up'. Show me. Show all of us.
You won't because you can't because your so-called theory lacks the concepts and logical structures required to do so, while being overburdened with nonsensical claims that add nothing by way of explanatory force.
|Date: 2013/10/17 12:49:56, Link|
Since Gary seems unable to distinguish between the creation of a theory and the utterance of one, here's yet another example of intelligent behavior that his theory cannot account for due to his insistence that there be a motor in the overall process:
recognition of a melody
And another -- composition of a piece of music. Mozart could compose entire large scale works with no direct muscular involvement.
No muscular involvement is required or needed to recognize a melody -- which is something that cannot be done by things that lack intelligence. Feel free to disagree, Gary, but only if you can provide an example.
But as always, Gary will begin the furious side-pedaling attempting to distract us away from his dismal failure to produce or explain a 'theory of intelligence'. He will go to any lengths to avoid discussion of the issues, as witnessed by his ongoing refusal to provide non-trivial and non-controversial (i.e., something other than those things we know were produced by humans) example of a 'feature of the universe' that can be "explained" by his "theory". And his continuing refusal to use his 'theory' to actually explain anything, let alone anything interesting.
|Date: 2013/10/18 06:48:23, Link|
Have you modified your document yet again?
What is clearly stated in the diagram you so constantly post as a response to your critics, we clearly see:
4 Requirements model INTELLIGENCE
(1) Addressable MEMORY. Position, State.
(2) Motor CONTROL. Velocity, Direction
(3) Success/fail CONFIDENCE level.
(4) Ability to take a GUESS
So how have I taken the 'very clear "REQUIREMENT #1 of 4 - SOMETHING TO CONTROL" rather than the very clear REQUIREMENT #2 Motor Control"?
Your diagram is very very clear on this point -- a requirement for intelligence is motor control.
And your requirement is very clearly wrong, as has been convincingly demonstrated by the examples raised that you continue not to address.
Mr. Wells had it entirely correct when he elaborated on my points and laid out what the set of honest responses consisted of.
As we see, you are incapable of an honest response.
Which is appropriate in a perverse way as you do not have an honest 'theory'.
|Date: 2013/10/18 07:00:27, Link|
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 17 2013,23:36)
And here we see yet another place where honesty fails you. You do not have a consistent, nor coherent, nor logically non-contradictory description in your theory of the notions of 'cellular intelligence' and 'molecular intelligence'.
Remember it is a basic law of logic that any result can be validly derived from a false statement. A contradiction is a false statement. Your entire perspective on 'molecular intelligence' is contradictory -- as you yourself point out in your document, wherein you state that molecular behavior only exhibits 2 of the 4 requirements laid out for intelligence but might yet be shown to be intelligent.
Your thinking, if I may exaggerate a bit and call it such, is so totally confused on this, and all other points, raised in your document that no possible consistent coherent picture can be extracted.
Your 'theory' relies on contradictions and foundational elements which are not so much badly laid out as not laid out at all, your 'requirements' for 'intelligence' in your special sense of the term bind intelligence to motor control/motion systems. Without clear definitions and examples up front of 'intelligence' and all the variants you construct in your desperate attempt to extend your "theory" from the atomic level up to the universal level, no one has any hope of determining the truth or falsity, or the coherence or internal consistency, of the claims asserted but not supported in your steaming pile of rubbish verbiage mistakenly called a 'theory'.
We have your own words here that 'molecular intelligence' exists and is of key importance. We have your own words, repeatedly examined and eviscerated, that 'molecular intelligence' is as of yet undetermined and may or may not actually meet your own 'criteria' or requirements for 'intelligence'.
This is typical of your confused thinking and your inability to write clearly.
And it is more than enough to cast your absurd grand claim that 'certain [unidentified, unexemplified] features of the universe are best explained by intelligent cause' onto the garbage heap of worthless notions, pseudo-notions that are of no value whatever.
As we've been telling you here and elsewhere across the web for hundreds of pages now.
|Date: 2013/10/18 07:06:19, Link|
As I have shown, you are mistaken about what is under discussion here, which is "REQUIREMENT #2 of 4 - Motor CONTROL".
But let's now look at 'requirement #1'. Can you explain what the 'something to control' is in the case of recognition of a melody? What is the 'something to control' in the case of composition of a melody?
What is doing the controlling? What is being controlled?
Without doubt, melody recognition and melody composition are intelligent acts. Fairly simple ones, it would seem. So your "theory" should be able to clearly explain them, in its own terms, so that we understand the intelligence involved and how it works.
Kindly show us.
You won't because you can't because your 'theory' barely rises to the level of incoherent nonsense.
The minimum it requires to be able to meet a subset of the tasks you set for it is a total reconceptualization and rewrite.
Regardless of how impressed 5 people at Planet Source Code are by your pitiful little software effort.
|Date: 2013/10/18 07:10:10, Link|
I have bolded the part that answers your question. Odd that you missed it, or it would be except for the demonstrated fact that your reading and thinking skills lag behind your abysmal writing skills, horrifying though that is to contemplate.
Robots don't matter given all the other demonstrated flaws (to be kind) in your "theory".
Nor does how long or how much work you've done on robotics. Without an operational definition of 'intelligence', which you persist in not supplying, your robotic work is of far less significance than Stanislaw Lem's.
|Date: 2013/10/18 07:12:59, Link|
The only 'goalpost moving' is yours -- you want to shift the discussion as if we were mistaking 'requirement 1' for the actual requirement under discussion, which is #2 (pun fully intended).
You have yet to score a single point in the game. As nearly as we can tell, you are playing an imaginary game with imaginary friends using imaginary equipment. And even your imaginary point score is actually zero.
|Date: 2013/10/18 14:39:42, Link|
But now you're claiming to be modeling a brain, not intelligence 'as such'. Did you not already claim, above, that intelligence precedes consciousness?
In which case, wtf are you doing blithering about simulating a brain?
Why aren't you simulating intelligence?
And, just by the way, where do molecules keep their brains for 'molecular intelligence'? Where does a cell keep it's brain for 'cellular intelligence'?
Is it any wonder we criticize your work, when it is nonsense fully up to the lunatic standard? Lacking only the artistic wit of Lewis Carroll, or his ability with logic, you've managed to create a "Red Queen's Intelligence 'theory'". Pardon us for not shouting 'Bravo!'
You have yet to demonstrate this.
But they do not, emphatically not, address the questions of intelligence that we've been aiming in your general direction. That's an auto-fail.
No one is 'devastated' by your inability to think, write, or generate an actual theory -- except, perhaps, you.
So many mistakes. So much nonsense.
Gary, everyone sees how pathetic your waffling and weaseling and handwaving attempts to get around the fundamental problems with your 'theory' always fail. No one is fooled except perhaps for a few of the voices in your head.
|Date: 2013/10/19 09:37:46, Link|
Yes, in a sense.
We've found out that you hold a self-contradictory position on 'molecular intelligence'.
We know from logic that from a false premise any conclusion can be validly derived.
We know that a contradiction is inherently false.
Thus, from 'molecular intelligence' in its current form in your "theory", you can derive anything at all.
Either you have 4 requirements for 'intelligence', whatever you happen to mean by that term, or you do not.
Either you are correct that chemical, i.e., molecular, behavior displays only 2 of the requirements which must be met or it does not.
You have claimed that molecules only exhibit 2 of the 4 necessary criteria, yet may still be found to be intelligent' [in your special sense of the term].
This in and of itself is sufficient to warrant throwing the entire heap of steaming pretension you call a 'theory' onto the trash heap.
You have never addressed or repaired this massive fault at the foundation of your overarching and overweening "theory".
So no, we have not "found out what molecular intelligence is". Because you have not found out what it is. Yet your theory relies on it.
|Date: 2013/10/19 10:13:23, Link|
Lest we forget, in the face of Gary's handwaving and confusion, there is still the unaddressed (by Gary) problem of binding 'intelligence' to motion, to muscular action.
We have shown a number of classes of intelligent behavior that do not have motion or 'motor control' or muscular action involved as any inherent or necessary part of the behavior.
Gary needs to address this massive flaw in his pseudo-theory every bit as much as he needs to address his contradictory stance on his '4 requirements' and 'molecular intelligence'.
Rather like what Mary McCarthy said about Lillian Hellman, every word Gary writes is an error, including 'and' and 'the'.
|Date: 2013/10/19 12:23:29, Link|
Typical Gaulin absurdity, I agree.
The notion that anything connected to RAM data 'should' qualify as a motor is laughable if not out and out insane.
And worse, for his 'theory', is it reinforces the objection that he has reduced all 'intelligence' to motor activity, which leaves out vast swathes of what the normal world would consider 'intelligent'.
Gary's only skills seem to be contradicting himself and digging himself in deeper and deeper.
|Date: 2013/10/19 12:31:59, Link|
I call bullshit.
Gary, you have not justified reducing all intelligence to motor behavior.
Your attempt here to justify that is a genuine failure of logic. You are attempting to show that some, perhaps a large number, of motor behavior systems are intelligent.
The problem with that rejoinder is no one is disputing that.
I am not insisting that motor systems are not and can never be intelligent, or 'intelligent' in your special sense of the term, whatever that might be.
What I am arguing is that there are a host of intelligent systems, acts of intelligence, that are not motor systems. Unlike you, I've given examples, which you have largely ignored.
The upshot, though, is that you cannot claim to have a 'theory of intelligence' when at most you might have a 'theory of intelligent action' or other phrase that more clearly indicates you are focused on a subset of things that lie within the problem of 'intelligence'.
Even if a miracle were to occur, and your 'theory' were to be repaired such that it actually was coherent, consistent, logical, and of explanatory value for intelligent motor/motion systems, it would still not be a 'theory of intelligence'.
And worse, for you, is the fact that you do not appear to be adding anything at all to the work that has already been done on intelligence in motor or motion systems.
You've contaminated the good work of others with nonsense such as your notions of 'molecular intelligence' and 'cellular intelligence'.
Even in your beloved diagram, it is clear that you ascribe things to intelligence that are not present at the level of cells or molecules -- particularly, RAM and motors. Cells do not have muscles, they do not have 'motor systems. Neither do molecules. Cells do not have RAM or anything usefully analogized to RAM. Nor do molecules.
As always, Gary, epic fail.
|Date: 2013/10/19 13:00:15, Link|
Tied to motion as you are, you cannot explain the generation, as opposed to the expression, of a theory.
You cannot account for the recognition of a melody.
You cannot account for the act of musical composition, as opposed to the expression of the composition by writing it on paper or performing it on an instrument.
You cannot account for how Beethoven composed the 9th symphony while deaf as a stone.
You cannot identify what it is that intelligence recognizes as 'the same story' across multiple differing media and languages.
Nor can you identify what is involved in the planning and creation of a story prior to its being set down in writing or expressed orally.
You've got nothing that is of any help for any of the hard or interesting problems of 'intelligence' in any of the usual meanings of the term.
|Date: 2013/10/21 07:04:41, Link|
And Gary continues his futile attempts to distract from the challenges raised against his theory.
As always, we see that his "theory" has no explanatory power -- it is all ad hoc and 'just so' stories.
One thing we know about intelligence, Gary, is that it is capable of planning. This includes planning for things that have not happened in the experience of the specific intelligence involved, and may well never have happened at all.
How does your 'theory' account for that? Note that we distinguish between 'guessing' and 'planning', for they are quite distinct.
If your "theory" cannot explain how an intelligence generates an actual theory, not a guess, then it fails.
|Date: 2013/10/21 07:10:35, Link|
Here's another one for you to try to explain with your "theory", Gary.
We have records of a specific individual, a survivor of WW1.
This individual suffered damage to his brain that caused a variety of difficulties, yet this individual was not unintelligent, let alone 'mindless'.
The difficulties often arose from the inability to generalize, to make the shift from the concrete to the categorial attitude.
Here is a specific example. This individual was able to recognize, without difficulty, the home of the doctor with whom he worked extensively.
But oddly enough, the house could not be recognized from pictures, nor could it be recognized when the individual was walking down the street and saw the house but was on his way to a different destination.
The doctor's house was recognizable only when it played a specific role in the plans and goals of the patient.
How can your 'theory' explain this?
How can your 'theory' explain the existence of such intelligent 'structures' or 'artifacts' as plans and goals?
How can your 'theory' account for abstraction, generalization, and, in general, the categorial attitude?
You have not 'theory of intelligence'. You have no theory at all, but what you do have is demonstrably incapable of addressing any of the interesting questions of intelligence. Unless, of course, your never-defined 'intelligence' is something quite other than what the rest of us typically mean by the term.
|Date: 2013/10/21 09:29:01, Link|
And yet somehow he's never explained anything using his 'theory'.
How odd. (Or is the right word 'pathetic'?)
|Date: 2013/10/22 07:20:34, Link|
I think Gary is now at the Dembski level of explanation -- he sees no need to provide any pathetic level of detail we might ask for.
Apparently, it is to be taken as 'intuitively obvious' that he has succeeded on his quest to find "intelligent causation" at all levels of the universe and beyond. It is up to his inferiors, i.e., everyone else, to apply it and be amazed at how well it explains everything. Of course, any attempt to apply it that fails represents a moral failing on the part of the tester, if not an out and out attack on Gary.
So far we've seen nothing at all explained by Gary's "theory", and I think it's safe to assume that will continue to be the case.
If he actually had a 'theory of intelligent causation', he could show, at least in broad outline, how a 'theory of intelligent causation' explains the generation of a theory.
As it stands, he remains confused over the distinction between a theory and the physical expression of the theory in print or speech.
|Date: 2013/10/22 09:00:22, Link|
I certainly agree that Gary is very bad, to understate the case, with the distinction between abstract and concrete thinking.
This is demonstrated well by the fact that his "theory" has no concept of such a distinction, and operates only on the basis of the concrete.
We generally take the ability to plan as a significant component of intelligence, yet the closest his 'theory' comes to accommodating planning is its concept of 'making a guess'. But of course in the real world in which we all operate, plans and guesses are entirely different notions.
Compounding his problem is his belief that a von Neumann architecture is a suitable architecture for modeling intelligence. That is increasingly being seen by computer professionals as hopelessly wrong.
So as has been noted before, every word of Gary's 'theory' is wrong, including 'the' and 'and'.
|Date: 2013/10/22 14:33:57, Link|
So, still sticking with the 'anything, anything at all to avoid discussing the fatal problems with my "theory"' schtick.
Impressively consistent, even if it is consistently unimpressive as an intellectual approach.
|Date: 2013/10/23 07:12:59, Link|
And still less does it constitute 'coming to life'.
Gary, your 'theory' is impotent.
You cannot account for generalization or abstraction.
You cannot account for the generation of theories.
You cannot accommodate planning of any sort.
You cannot account for memories that arise due to anything other than sensory input.
You cannot account for why or how apparently identical sensory input can at some points lead to the creation of new memories, at other points lead to the 'recovery' or 'bringing to mind' of certain specific memories and at other times bring other memory 'contents' to the fore.
You cannot account for errors in mental processing.
You cannot account for creativity not driven by immediate sensory input (which rules out, for example, the creation of Beethoven's Ninth).
Your cannot account for perceptual figure/ground relationships.
You cannot identify the ram, the motor, or the 'guess' capability asserted to exist at the cellular level.
You cannot identify the ram, the motor, or the 'guess' capability at the molecular level. Nor can your resolve the contradiction between your '4 criteria' and these problems with 'cellular' and 'molecular' "intelligence". Either your criteria express necessary conditions or they do not -- and your 'theory tries to have it both ways.
The list of things your 'theory' cannot do is far longer than the list of things it can do. To be extraordinarily generous, you have an impoverished view of 'intelligence'.
We are more than justified on these grounds alone, or, really, any subset of these grounds, in laughing and pointing at your 'theory'. There is nothing there to take seriously.
Much as has been said about another 'thinker' and her results, your 'theory' is both original and correct. However, where it is original it is not correct, and where it is correct it is not original.
|Date: 2013/10/23 08:55:21, Link|
Yup. He's abstracted out all the interesting, and all the difficult, parts.
In so doing, he smuggles extrinsic intelligence into his model. It is, as Jim Wynne continues to correctly point out, impotent software that is doing only what it is told. In that respect, it is hardly different from Eliza, although with less direct input from a user.
But all the 'intelligence' in Gary's program was put there by Gary and abstracted away in his 'theory'.
With the result being that he has a 'theory' that has no explanatory power, no relevance to real intelligence, and no hope of ever going beyond the 'less than a Roomba' stage.
This sort of error, the embedding of explicit or implicit homunculi into theories of intelligence, is well covered in Terrence W. Deacon's 'Incomplete Nature', a reading of which would serve Gary well.
He could also learn from Deacon's writing ability -- not that there's a hope in hell of Gary ever rising to the level of even the 'Dick and Jane' primary readers.
|Date: 2013/10/23 08:59:40, Link|
Oh, so now simple electronic synthesizer modules are to count as 'intelligent'?
Good grief. I've owned and used this particular module.
And it serves as a good example of your confusions. The outputs must be interpreted. They have no meaning outside of an implementation context, extrinsic to the memory. No more and no less than with digital ram. The analog nature helps you not at all.
The same values may be used to control oscillator pitch and/or filter cutoff and/or filter resonance and/or amplifier volume and/or the input and/or sampling rate of a sample-hold module, etc., etc., etc.
Feel free to plug the MakeNoise module into your 'circuit' or your 'theory' -- it won't help the fundamental problems that exist therein.
|Date: 2013/10/24 06:39:13, Link|
You are still avoiding the problems caused by your insistence that the only 'output' of intelligence is tied to motion/muscular activity.
Since this is so clearly false, it falsifies your "theory" for as long as you refuse to deal with it.
Note that you smuggle in the tie to motion by your limited use of 'output' in the phrase 'output neurons of our brain'.
Also note that physiologically, it is unclear that neurons can be neatly sorted into 'input', 'output', and 'processing'.
|Date: 2013/10/24 07:23:17, Link|
I've highlighted the error in usage in your first sentence.
Now follow your own advice, read your paper as if you were totally unfamiliar with your own work, and fix it!
Sadly, were you to do that, the many flaws, errors, and contradictions it contains would be that much more obvious.
|Date: 2013/10/24 13:09:15, Link|
I'll echo this request.
I'm particularly interested in the 'droop' figure. Given that any non-digital RAM is essentially a sample&hold device, there is some leakage in any implementation, which means the memory value changes over time. How much over how long are the figures that matter -- if the droop is less than some pertinent value and/or occurs in significantly more time than the sampling interval, the S&H is suitable. If not, not. But droop is inevitable.
Then tell us about the clocking that drives the sample rate, and the expected rate of change of the signal being sampled.
And any feedback loops involved -- is the sampled value refreshed? Is the sampled value compared against the incoming value so as to generate triggers at 'significant' value change points? Or is it clocked directly?
|Date: 2013/10/24 14:03:55, Link|
And it is typically odd that he would need to do so -- these are present in digital RAM as well, albeit going under slightly different names. Digital ram 'droops' as the voltage falls away from the value taken to be '1' or, generally via parasitic effects, rises away from the value taken to be '0'.
Clocking is merely the 'set' signal to a ram cell.
IOW, here as everywhere, digital is a subset of analog. Its utility is generally due to the fact that, as a subset, it is constrained in ways that make it more tractable along the dimensions of interest.
What I, and I'm sure others, am most interested in is how GG is going to demonstrate his phenomena without importing them from the outside. All RAM values require interpretation, which is a function of intelligence, and which must be extrinsic to all circuits of the form he uses.
Gary 'explains' intelligence by smuggling it into his circuit, and then uses his circuit to 'prove' the "correctness" of his "theory". It's nonsense all the way down.
|Date: 2013/10/25 06:38:24, Link|
Well of course not.
We're talking about your effluent, which is most certainly not science in any way, shape or form. Science only comes into it when we point out various facts acquired by science that you ignore, distort, or evade. The critique is devastating -- you got nothin'.
But good job of maintaining your track record of saying anything at all that lets you avoid discussing your 'theory' and the many questions and challenges raised against its plethora of errors and contradictions.
|Date: 2013/10/25 16:55:49, Link|
Well, of course.
The only one who can change that is Gary.
But on the grounds of his own "theory", he isn't intelligent. That is, he fails but does not bother to 'guess' a change in behavior, and so continues to fail. In the same way, over and over again.
|Date: 2013/10/26 13:26:13, Link|
That's pretty funny, Gary. Especially given that you've been treated no worse here than you were at, say, Talk Rational. You generally don't do well on genuine science sites, and you do especially poorly when you try to tout your absurd "theory".
But as always, this is all just handwaving on your part, so as not to have to speak to any of the substantive objections raised against both your 'theory' and your software.
Both of which suggest, by the way, that you are uniquely unqualified to judge the mental abilities of others.
|Date: 2013/10/27 06:56:33, Link|
Given that a contradiction lies at the foundations of your "theory", it is no wonder you can find confirming bits and pieces out in the world.
In logic, a contraction is false, and from a false premise one can validly deduce anything at all.
You really need to stop finding new virtual epicycles to pile on top of the smoldering heap of rubbish you currently have and instead work on fixing the substructure.
This forum has been quite helpful, or would be if you would only pay attention, in that we have pointed out countless flaws -- errors, contradictions and confusions -- within your 'model' and your "theory".
But as any number of us have pointed out, you will go to any lengths, including the heaping of virtual epicycles onto your pile of trash, to avoid dealing with the clear, and multiple, deficiencies of your work.
Why is that? Even on the basis of one of the few clear parts of your "theory", this repetitive behavior which inevitably leads to failure should result in a change of your behavior. The only explanation available from within the confines of your "theory" is that you are getting precisely the results you desire. Could that be it? Are you simply exercising your mental masochism? There really is no point to your "theory" or your 'model' or your software other than to generate derision?
If so, good job!
But if not, you should get someone to think about getting you some mental help -- you are obviously unable to do that on your own.
|Date: 2013/10/27 08:07:48, Link|
But no more relevant.
Try explicitly binding these concepts into your hogwash.
Simply pointing the work of others does you no good at all, and shines a spotlight on your inherently parasitic nature.
Your "theory" is both unique and true -- where it is unique, however, it is not true, and where it is true it is most certainly not unique.
|Date: 2013/10/27 08:25:36, Link|
I don't see how we can call what you do in this thread 'keeping up' -- you persistently ignore genuine issues with your "theory" and your 'model'. The only posts you respond to are those that you can use to launch baseless attacks or tout the work of others as somehow justifying the egregious foolishness that makes up your "theory".
'Molecular intelligence'? Fails to meet your own criteria, yet considered a basal component of your 'theory'.
'Cellular intelligence'? We're still waiting to see what and where the RAM is in a 'cell'. Ditto the 'motor'. Ditto the mechanism which generates the 'guess'.
I agree everyone needs to watch where they step in this thread. If they step into your stuff, they'll have effluent that must be scraped off their shoes.
If you step into our stuff, you'll have to confront the host of problems that have been laid out for your "theory".
It may be a minefield around here, but we all have maps -- you're the only one who makes any 'wrong steps'. Unless, of course, generating derision and ridicule is the goal of your work, in which case you're succeeding quite well. But why come here? You get that anywhere you present your "theory" with a pretense of discussing it.
Your software is no more relevant to 'theories of intelligence' than Space Invaders is to SETI. Except people were willing to pay money for Space Invaders.
|Date: 2013/10/27 09:20:43, Link|
|How do you hone jello?|
|Date: 2013/10/30 13:36:03, Link|
Good thing you're not a scientist, or you would have a lock on the title.
As it is, '(allegedly) human being who cannot communicate with anyone' is yours forever.
Are you ever going to get over your pathetic concerns about Wes and actually attempt to clarify and defend your "theory"?
Silly me, of course you're not. Especially not the second part.
|Date: 2013/10/31 07:27:44, Link|
Well, quite clearly the first thing you should do is fix your "theory" so that the claims you trumpet here are at least a bit closer to being correct.
Need I point out yet again that you have no such thing as 'molecular intelligence' to work with? You base your presumption of such a thing on a blatant contradiction embedded at the root of your codswallop that you continue to mis-identify as a 'theory'.
You also appear to have no such thing as 'cellular intelligence' to work with.
In neither case have you demonstrated the existence, let alone implementation, of the 4 criteria you maintain are the core features, the necessary components, of 'intelligence' in your special sense.
You do recall, do you not, that from a false premise, any conclusion can be validly drawn? And that a contradiction is always a false premise?
You have even less to offer to fractal theorists or interested amateurs than you have to offer to cognitive or biological sciences. And that's being extraordinarily generous by suggesting you might ever be considered by anyone other than yourself to have anything to offer anyone or anything other than effluent.
There is a proper place for effluent Gary. Kindly flush before the system blocks due to excessive bulk.
|Date: 2013/10/31 07:31:17, Link|
Horrifyingly enough, it is considerably more rational than Gary's 'work'. It does not treat the first step as merely a 'guess'. It allows for imagination. It does not inextricably bind intelligence to motion.
Yes, it was created by a loon, and a vile despicable little man, so there is that overarching similarity, but this is better effluent than Gary produces.
|Date: 2013/11/01 07:12:19, Link|
And yet the furthest you've been able (or is it willing?) to go is to assert, without evidence or specifics, that 'certain features of the universe are best explained by intelligent cause'. Phrased in this way and with no exemplars provided, who could complain? Of course things like novels, symphonies, scientific theories, television broadcasts, etc., etc., are best explained by intelligent cause. This is not controversial.
But taken any further, as you imply you must, is ludicrous. That you remain silent on the question of just what the specific features are that you are attempting to explain with 'intelligent cause' is telling.
That you base your 'theory' on multiple levels of contradiction is also telling.
Your current situation is entirely of your own contriving. Rather than looking to leverage the track site for income and connections with the appropriate institutions, whether those would be, for you, the Discovery Institute, AIG, or the various real science organization, you want to spew your absurdities about "fractal" 'intelligence' spread from the lowest to the highest 'levels' of reality.
Yet you are unable to articulate what that means or how it works. No, your 40 page document doesn't count, for the obvious reasons that it is inarticulate, self-contradictory, missing great chunks of necessary argument, etc., etc.
You really should spend a year or two with Terrance W. Deacon's book Incomplete Nature to see how its done. I'm not saying he's 100% correct, but I am 100% certain he's explored the real territory you've only imagined, has grappled with it, and has provided an explanatory framework based on sound science.
You've wasted countless electrons spewing your nonsense everywhere you can find, yet somehow always getting the same response.
You don't even know what 'intelligence' is, probably because you have no personal experience with it.
|Date: 2013/11/01 15:58:29, Link|
A commercial photographic artist should know better.
The techniques of modifying existing paintings as well as techniques such as creating art based on the smoke smudges left by holding paper near/over candle flames were put to good (as well as bad) use in the 20th century.
Dali used paint spatters created from explosive devices loaded with paint and fired at canvases as the basis of some of his later work.
It is shameful that an alleged artist knows so little about the history of his field as to make this sort of error. The arrogance of stupidity knows no bounds.
|Date: 2013/11/02 07:03:47, Link|
Project much, Gary?
This is, after all, your entire procedure in a nut
You never answer relevant questions, you constantly repeat the misinformation contained in your absurd diagram -- you know, the one that embeds the fundamental contradiction at the roots of your theory.
And why on earth you think a 'theory of intelligence', even if you had one, would be any threat to the modern evolutionary synthesis remains a great mystery. You have yet to identify what the connection is supposed to be or how it is supposed to work. You've exposed just barely enough for us to know you are a quasi-Lamarckian, yet (see above) you never attempt to clarify or defend that long-refuted notion's place in your "theory".
We all note with vast amusement that your absurd quest and your own literary and mental capabilities have quite clearly diminished since your 'glory days' at Talk Rational.
As you reap, so shall you sow. And boy are you reaping!
Enjoy the long cold winter you pathetic fraud.
|Date: 2013/11/02 07:09:37, Link|
Except, of course, for the crucial fact that you are unable to identify a single bit of mis-information being taught, let alone clarify why it is mis-information and how it could be clarified or otherwise improved.
We've already seen that 'metaphor' and 'analogy' are terms you do not understand, which is at least a small part of your confusion here.
You continue to accuse others of dishonesty in broad strokes, but have never been able to point to actual meaningful instances, least of all in the specific areas you charge these things to be rampant.
You may be scandalized that the real world treats you as you actually deserve, rather than as you fantasize you deserve. The rest of us are merely amused. And occasionally horrified that your self-destructive tendencies are likely having negative effect on those who, god have mercy on them, are close to you or rely on you.
|Date: 2013/11/02 07:15:28, Link|
Put up or shut up, Gary.
You are being grossly dishonest when you assert that Darwinian evolutionary theory is being taught as cosmology or even as an origins theory.
The claim that 'parents are disgusted by sloppy science being taught in schools' may well be true. It should be true, for sloppy science is indeed being taught.
But to assume from this that your effluent is in any way, shape, or form an improvement is lunacy of the highest degree.
It would be amusing to see what a high-school English teacher would make of your document. It would not be pretty.
And you know, somehow 'sloppy verbiage' and the 'sloppy thinking' it represents would actually be a vast improvement on your output. Your document is an outrage against language and shows mental processes that are outrageously distant from rational thought.
So are you suggesting we replace 'sloppy science' with 'sloppy reading, writing, and content'?
I don't think parental outrage would be reduced by that approach, do you? Well, of course you do. But you are demonstrably not qualified to judge.
|Date: 2013/11/02 07:58:22, Link|
But Gary, you've never brought forth any evidence.
Output from your program is no more evidence than the screen for the old Space Invaders game is evidence of life on distant planets.
Your "theory" contains no evidence. Worse, as has already been noted it is both true and unique -- unfortunately, where it is true, it is both banal and far from unique. Where it is unique, it is largely banal, and very far indeed from truth.
|Date: 2013/11/02 08:02:15, Link|
Gary, you seem to believe your "theory" has explanatory power -- indeed, greater explanatory power than the modern evolutionary synthesis, modern cosmology, or, presumably, any other modern science (except cognitive science, which you are willing to parasitize).
How is it, then, that your "theory" cannot explain your own self-destructive behavior?
How is it your "theory" cannot explain any human behavior at all?
It is very clear that your "theory" cannot explain musical composition, the creation of a joke or riddle, or the generation of a theory.
Those are pretty significant failures for a theory that proclaims itself to have the many powers your attribute to your heaping pile of words.
What's up with that?
And more to the point, how is that not even stronger grounds for rejecting your work than any of the fantasy accusations you bring against modern science, even if those were found to be true [in bizzaro world perhaps]?
|Date: 2013/11/03 06:45:35, Link|
The same can be said for his "theory". Regardless of how magnificent he thinks it is, the truth is there to be seen.
Until, of course, he modifies the text, as we have seen him to, do eliminate an objection. With no marker for the edit, no versioning of the document, no sign that it ever said anything different than what it did after the edit.
But still and all, Gary's nonsense stands condemned by whatever version of the "theory" one reads, due to the embedded contradictions if for no other reason.
As many have told him, the only way to rescue his "theory" would be a total reconceptualization and rewrite. There are no minor edits that can make it better, or make him look less of a lunatic.
The track record of his posts in this thread stand eloquent testimony to his madness, in no small part because of his magnificent inability to articulate a thought. This is due in no small measure to his inability to form a coherent thought.
And btw Gary, those of us who followed your antics on TR have a rather different recollection of your track record there, and of the alleged 'edits' made to 'shape perception' of your lunacy. Unlike your clandestine and unmarked editing of your "theory", no one removed any of your posts from TR. Wildly inappropriate or off-topic posts were moved, not removed. They're all still there, and anyone who can be bothered to look at your posts can find them all. Unlike the multiple versions of your "theory" that have existed over the years.
Why is it that wherever you go online you are deemed a madman with nothing to offer but lulz?
|Date: 2013/11/03 08:10:02, Link|
You've been called out on specific details directly from your document and diagram. You remain unwilling, and doubtlessly unable, to address those flaws.
And those flaws are absolutely fatal to your "theory" as it stands.
Specifically, a limited set of the most pressing issues:
'Molecular intelligence' is both acknowledged to be a form of 'intelligence' and not to be such based on its failure to meet all 4 necessary criteria for intelligence.
'Cellular intelligence' requires, according to your diagram and your criteria, features not present at the cellular level.
'Intelligent causation' is entirely extrinsic, being tied directly to movement, motor control. This removes imagination, planning, composing, designing, and other intelligent process from your "theory" of 'intelligence'.
You have consistently and from the start, long before your presence on AtBC, been called out on the absurd lack of specificity of 'some features of the universe'. You have consistently refused to more fully qualify those weasel words.
It's genuinely a shame that the only time you can communicate clearly is when you are being demonstrably dishonest.
|Date: 2013/11/03 08:21:44, Link|
Again I call bullshit.
You cannot show where I have misrepresented your points in my 'limited list' above.
You cannot show a single post of mine with respect to your 'work' that raises the issue of religion, in any form.
You cannot demonstrate that I am the one who is demonstrating an 'inability to get anything straight' with respect to your own words both accepting and denying that molecules have a claim to 'intelligence'.
You cannot show a single post where you have identified any non-trivial and non-controversial 'features of the universe' that are explained, let alone 'best explained' by a 'theory of intelligent cause'.
But I congratulate you on being dishonest in a post that is rather closer to the incoherence you typically display. This might hint to casual observers that you are being less dishonest in your post. The reality is otherwise, as seems always to be the case with your effluent.
|Date: 2013/11/04 07:13:55, Link|
Then why are you still here?
We all note with no surprise whatever that you are entirely unable to provide a single instance of an 'excluded opinion' that would indicate that anyone anywhere thinks you are a good teacher of your "theory" or that your "theory" has any merit whatsoever.
In the court of public opinion, you've already been convicted of being a scientific fraud -- on the merits.
Yet you are unable to quote or link to any deceptions on our part.
You still don't realize that to be 'science stoppers', we would have to be focused on actual science, of which you have none.
You prattle on about unspecified 'antiquated generalizations' without ever being able to identify, let alone cogently criticize any specific instances.
And you meanwhile generalize without any basis the various 'levels' of 'intelligence' about which you cannot even remain consistent.
You have still neither acknowledged nor rectified the blatant contradiction between your '4 criteria' and your notions of molecular and cellular 'intelligence'.
You have never addressed the madness of binding a concept of intelligence exclusively to motion or motor control.
You have never addressed the many many issues of genuine intelligence as it exists in the real world that your "theory" is simply blind to. This is probably due to your ridiculous conflation of 'cognition' and 'intelligence'. Your inability to clarify concepts and terminology is approaching legendary status on the net. Certainly, it is realized amongst those who follow your 'work', your careening progress across the net, that you present a maximized example of lunacy coupled with Dunning-Kruger coupled with a persecution complex the size of a small planet.
Your theory is both unique and correct. Tragically, where it is unique it is not correct; where it is correct, it is not unique. Indeed, whatever minimal value it may have is entirely lifted from the work of others on whom you are parasitic.
|Date: 2013/11/04 10:19:09, Link|
Pitiful, Gary, just pitiful.
We've been over this before -- insofar as you're 'known to schools and universities', it's only due to your fortuitous ownership of the track site.
No one judges your 'theory of intelligence/intelligent cause' museum worthy nor suitable for schools at any level.
You don't do any scientific work.
And this schtick that others must meet some absurd criteria that you specify, and that you oh-so-clearly fail to meet, is just another flavor of your ridiculous notion that the only possible counter to your 'theory' is a better theory. It is worthy of no more respect or consideration than that desperate ploy, although it's nice to see you've at least temporarily dropped that one.
We've got better theories, not least because you don't have a theory at all.
Given that you showed up on the internet asking others for input on your 'theory', you are being singularly ungracious, to say nothing of mind-bogglingly stupid, to now claim that you're doing 'museum level work' and need no input.
Especially after you've been condemned for contradictions found within your own document, have been challenged on every level of your 'theory', and have consistently failed to address any of the points raised.
All of which could have been done with far less effort than the 250+ pages of whining you've engaged in here.
Who supports your work? No one.
Who thinks your work is important? No one.
Who thinks you have a 'theory of intelligence/intelligent cause'? No one.
At this point, we seem to be safe in assuming that no qualification such as 'other than yourself' needs to be added to any of the above. You know you are being dishonest about these claimed facts and characteristics. And your only defense is bluster.
Pitiful. Pathetic, even.
|Date: 2013/11/04 11:17:36, Link|
None of which has anything to do with your "theory" or its reception. And that's what you came here to discuss.
Apparently, your view of 'discuss' is on a par with your view of 'theory', i.e., totally deranged.
You cannot borrow or parasitize respect or authority, much though you attempt to.
Your work fails on the merits, of which it has none.
Your personality fails for all the flaws you have demonstrated here over the last 250+ pages, to say nothing of the behavior you've displayed on other sites.
But you would rather call your challengers 'trolls' than meet the challenge, step up to the work, and actually discuss your 'theory' and its pitiful content.
So be it. As you sow, so shall you (continue) to reap.
|Date: 2013/11/04 12:09:59, Link|
So you're learning impaired as well?
I think it's fair to say that it would be extraordinarily difficult to spend 'at least several hundred hours' studying modern evolutionary theory and come to the conclusion that it is 'no more than hero worship of Charles Darwin'.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think this is just more of your bullshit. That is to say that once again you are being dishonest. Massively dishonest.
But it's what we've come to expect from you.
Why on earth you think 'evolutionary theory' is or needs to be at odds with a genuine theory of intelligence is beyond me.
Again I suggest you read Terrance W. Deacon's book 'Incomplete Nature'. Try not to move your lips when you examine the pictures. And try to read for comprehension.
The man knows far more about both intelligence and evolution than you ever will, whatever the flaws of his book and/or his approach might be.
|Date: 2013/11/04 14:23:35, Link|
You do spend a great deal of energy in the avoidance of any pretense of actually addressing the many criticisms of your "theory", don't you?
Seems even to cut into your 'making a living' time.
One might suspect your priorities are a bit confused. Out of whack with reality, even.
|Date: 2013/11/04 15:47:27, Link|
Unless you mean your "theory" is indefensible.
You have yet to clarify or demonstrate the existence of intelligence at the molecular level or the level of a single cell. You have yet to demonstrate that molecules and cells have RAM or motors.
You have not justified tying intelligence to motion/motor control. Remember, your "theory" isn't about a subset, it's about the whole deal.
You have not dealt with the contradiction between your '4 criteria' and 'molecular intelligence' and 'cellular intelligence'. You acknowledge that they do not exhibit all 4 criteria, but might be intelligent anyway. So are your criteria necessary or not? If not, why are the unnecessary ones included? If they are, why do you consider molecules and single cells 'intelligent'?
There's nothing left to address except valid criticisms of your "theory".
It's refreshing, though, to hear you admit your job is to flush scientific evidence. Certainly, all the evidence of genuine science is profoundly against you and your effluent.
But this is hardly a job that warrants payment, especially when you are so very very bad at it.
|Date: 2013/11/04 15:49:03, Link|
Why, are valid criticisms easier for you to ignore in bulk?
|Date: 2013/11/05 10:32:21, Link|
Gary, your work is incoherent precisely because you insist that the models and theories of cognitive science must be used at the molecular and cellular levels.
The 'scientific evidence' for this is the complete absence of application of the field of cognitive science to those areas, by the professional workers in the field.
We are still waiting for the (nonexistent) evidence that there are non-trivial and controversial aspects of the universe that are somehow 'explained' by your gibberish. Your failure to be more specific than 'certain features' is merely the first of a long list of dishonest evasions and other massive flaws in your "theory". Actually, the truly first error is calling your work a "theory", as has often been pointed out to you, and which has yet to be satisfactorily addressed. Another of your many failures.
|Date: 2013/11/05 13:07:38, Link|
Gary, is the object described and pictured at
intelligent according to your theory?
Why or why not?
What are the relevant distinctions between the gentlemen who created this brilliant antique device and the device itself in terms of intelligence, in your sense of the term?
Everyone else, go have a look at this, it's quite wonderful.
Gary will doubtlessly be somewhat slow to respond, given that he moves his lips when he looks at pictures, and there are a number of complex pictures presented.
|Date: 2013/11/05 15:05:04, Link|
Ah, yes, the old 'they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at Einstein, they laughed at Darwin' ploy.
But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. And unlike you, all 4 of these gentlemen were paid. And won respect on the merits.
You have earned only contempt, again, very much on the merits.
But do keep it up. Laughing at you is good fun. Certainly, it is the only fun you allow, given as how you refuse to engage with criticisms of your ridiculous little "theory".
|Date: 2013/11/06 06:19:56, Link|
How is the preservation or abandonment of a 'guess' in your circuit not a matter on which selection could operate?
How can you consider yourself to have provided a "theory" that provides an explanation for the origin of species that does not include reproduction with variation and selection with respect to a current environment?
To say nothing about all the already listed problems with your "theory".
|Date: 2013/11/06 06:43:17, Link|
For you, this is actually not bad writing.
As we predicted, though, without the cover of bad writing, the glaring flaws inherent in your thought processes become more apparent.
What is the 'nonrandom force' that guides self-assembly of molecules? What justifies re-naming already known quantum and chemical behavior as 'intelligent'? If you are 'simply' claiming that some sort of intelligence emerges from the known behavior of atomic and molecular chemistry, then you have to clearly present and justify both what you mean by 'intelligence' [especially given what you later claim] and deal with the entire problematic of 'emergence'. What emerges? How? What features facilitate it, what features impede it? How is what emerges not merely an epiphenomenon which can be eliminated by the reduction to 'mere' chemistry and physics without impact on our understanding of the behaviors involved?
Then, what justifies the claim that chemical reactions are 'non random'? Not random with respect to what? For they are quite clearly random with respect to which specific atoms and molecules are in the appropriate state and proximity for interaction. If you believe otherwise, it is required that you show that it is so, which you do not do. You cannot simply assume the results of paradigm-shattering work that has not been done as a foundation for your subsequent work.
In what fashion does this alleged 'nonrandom force' propagate to the self-assembly of cells? Again, this is a significant research problem the solution to which you merely assume and proceed to use as a foundation for your subsequent work. How is the assembly of a cell non-random? What thermodynamic effects hinder and what effects facilitate this assembly? In what way does 'molecular intelligence' play a role here, and why and how are we justified in calling it 'intelligence' rather than something else? A great deal is already known about this particular matter, and little of that seems to be in line with your views. You have to clarify what you mean here and go into much greater detail about how it works and how it justifies your idiosyncratic verbiage. And then you once again, at this next higher level, have to deal with what emerges in this emergent development of intelligence, how it is that it is not eliminated as epiphenomenal, what is different about the emerged property or properties at this level, etc.
Again, you have to work through this issues, not assume that paradigm shattering research and theorizing has already been done and has resulted in just the results you need to support your particular take on yet higher order emergent phenomena.
That's the short-form critique of your first sentence, and already we see that you have swept a vast host of major issues and problems under the rug -- largely because you have no faintest clue about what's actually going on, what is and is not already known in these areas, and to what extent these factors are critical for any theory of life or theory of intelligence. The same holds for a genuine theory of emergence, on which you rely but which you have neither developed nor substantiated as being the result of the work of others.
We already see the high price you pay for having no operational definitions of intelligence or emergence; these are crippling, nay fatal, flaws in a work that purports to be scientific.
Then you go on to elide all the major issues associated with the development of a nervous system and later a brain, not least of which is the implicit assignment of intelligence solely to entities with brains.
At which point, you have undercut the entirety of the points you have made in your first sentence. There are no brains in atoms or molecules or single cells or, generally, in simple cellular assemblies. At the other end of the scale, there are behaviors that are described, at least analogically, as 'intelligent' in living beings that have no brains.
Plus you now have yet another layer or level of emergent phenomena, leaving you even more reliant on a non-existent theory of emergence.
And that's the short-form critique of your second sentence.
The rest of your clearly written nonsense will be passed over for now, as there is nothing left of the foundation on which it attempts to build.
As I've said before, your "theory" would require a complete reconceptualization and rewrite to be worth anything at all. And now we see that merely a rewrite will avail you little, for when you achieve clarity of expression, you expose the contradictions and vacuity of your thoughts.
|Date: 2013/11/06 08:37:44, Link|
You see, Gary -- it's not like there is no evidence out there at all that might support some bits of your "theory". But you need to reference it and discuss how it fits into/supports the rest of your story.
Note well that these researchers did not describe the forces as 'non-random' nor assign any 'intelligence' any responsibility for this behavior. Nor do they assert any 'intelligence' as a proximate effect.
|Date: 2013/11/06 15:04:40, Link|
Or maybe they pick and choose between forming ionic and covalent bonds?
I doubt Gary has a clue about the matter. Let alone little things like activation energies, phosphorylation states, enzyme function, or much of anything else chemical in nature.
|Date: 2013/11/07 07:40:15, Link|
It does seem likely, doesn't it?
Despite the lack of concrete predictions in his "theory" document.
If he can assign the term 'sensory' to the behavior of molecules, considering 'sensing' to be the same as reacting to electrostatic fields, quantum resonances, and the relative proximity of other atoms or molecules, there is no end to how far he will torture semantics.
Likewise for the electronic, quantum, and physical [as in physics] fields that control the shape of complex molecules being taken as 'motor control'.
If he did not have an agenda, he wouldn't be forced into these tortured constructions, all made in a desperate attempt to eliminate 'emergence' from his theory so he doesn't have to deal with it. He merely assumes it, then flattens the world to his appallingly simple-minded model.
This, of course, leaves him with a theory that sees intelligence in the behavior of sperm cells but eliminates it from any role in imagination, composition, fiction creation, insight, and all of the rest of the interesting areas that should be the focus of a 'theory of intelligence'.
It is almost worth it, though, to hear Gary describe someone else's writing as 'friggin nuts' and 'not worth attending to'.
|Date: 2013/11/08 06:58:07, Link|
How many times does this mark your announcement of having finished?
It's at least the 2nd in a week, and I'm guessing over the last couple of years you've managed to declare "I'm done" in one form or another at least 2 dozen times.
So on average once a month you declare your work 'finished'.
Hardly impressive, least of all when the revisions are hidden by your lack of a versioning system and by your refusal to acknowledge the impact and influence of all the criticisms you've received, that have led you to return again and again to polishing the turd that is your "theory".
Particularly given that your polishing leaves the result no less a turd.
You are not able to make testable predictions from your "theory". Indeed, many of the revisions you've made have been ex post facto updates to accommodate new information that you subsequently claim to have 'predicted'.
You are not able to explain the emergence of 'intelligence' in any sense of the term. You simply assert that it happens over the course of time and increasing complexity. But you know, Gary, I don't think that counts as new news to anyone, except possibly you.
|Date: 2013/11/08 07:06:34, Link|
They are there at most as an analogy.
As was explained to you many pages ago by one of the other posters here [apologies to whoever it was for having forgotten your identity], what you are doing is not fractal. Fractal has a set of precise meanings, all related to 'dimension' and requiring an equation.
You torture your basic 'premise' into a 'fractal "theory"' by force-fitting notions into lower levels of physical being without ever justifying the fit. Your latest revision to your 'unimolecular intelligence' section demonstrates this by your reversion to more generic terms than 'motor' and 'motor control', for example.
And, just btw, weren't you the one who was railing furiously about the evils of generalization some 30 to 50 pages or so ago? Why yes, I believe it was. And now you are hiding more and more of the flaws of your 'theory' by using more and more generalized terms with less and less concrete application.
How surprising. How edifying. [/not]
How very very typical.
You should get bonus 'internet crank' points for this.
But hey, it looks like you're finally exhibiting what your own 'theory' would call 'intelligence' -- you're making a guess that you might wander back over to the fractal forum. I'm sure they'll be as impressed as we are.
|Date: 2013/11/08 08:14:41, Link|
And here Gary thought he'd perfected, or perhaps invented, or maybe discovered, 'the perfect blank'. I'll be he wishes he could sue. Snark hunting is, after all, one of the possible predictions of his "theory".
As might be expected, he doesn't recognize his success in all the snark he gets around here :p
|Date: 2013/11/09 11:27:00, Link|
First you have to operationally define 'intelligent cause'. You act as if the term were univocal, unambiguous, widely understood and precisely agreed on. None of these things are true. The term generally appears to be applied analogically and/or metaphorically, with no precision, no univocal meaning, and no quantification. Kinda makes 'explaining how that works' difficult, when there is no agreement on what 'that' actually is.
The problem at hand is the emergence of intelligence out of the unintelligent natural world. Not everything is intelligent, and some things are more intelligent then others, generally and roughly along the lines of species "complexity". Indeed, "self-similarity" from chemical reactions on up is precisely the problem to be solved. How do we get from simple chemical reactions (which is all that 'self assembly' is when you get right down to it) to intelligence and sentience? You haven't solved the problem, you haven't even addressed the problem -- you've just swept it under the rug, using some notably lumpy language.
Really? Babies are carefully [ahem -- more or less] coded in visual basic, run at the whim of the operator, can be stopped in the middle of operation, left quiescent for arbitrary periods of time, started again, and all without regard to the energy processes of the 'hardware' on which they run? You really are overturning all of biology aren't you?
This is idiotic at your peak level.
Except you cannot specify where and how the "self-similarity" applies. If DNA and RNA count as minimally intelligent 'uni-molecular intelligence', casual observation shows that there is no real degree of similarity between them and complex organisms -- least of all at anything like what we would normally call 'their image'.
'Self assembly' at the molecular level is not a magic wand that you can wave and have the problem of emergence solved. The sensitivity of complex molecules to shape and to the shapes of external chemical species is not a sensorium. There is no internal control applied by the molecule, there are only the laws of chemistry and physics.
This is called assuming your conclusion. There are clearly multiple levels of causation involved, but at no point do we escape the physical. What you have to do, to live up to your extravagant claims, is show how higher levels of structure and higher levels of complex causality arise out of simple chemical and physical reactions, and how, from those, basic primitive intelligence and then more and more complex forms of intelligence arise.
You have no hope of doing this without taking emergence seriously as a problem, and without having operational definitions of 'emergence' and 'intelligence' and 'life'. Lacking those three, as you do, leaves you impotent to do anything other than wave the magic wand of "self assembly" and an asserted but never proven claim of 'fractal similarity'.
Your use of 'force guided' is equivocal and, I think, used as another magic wand. The only forces involved are thermodynamic and electrostatic. There is nothing more there, yet you seem to be trying to imply that there is some extrinsic 'force' involved in self assembly. If I have misread you on this, well, there's a clue you need to rewrite this, as you have so much else so very often. If I am, however, correctly identifying an equivocation that you are using to imply a solution to a very real set of problems that does not and cannot obtain here, that's a sign you need to rethink entirely, as well as re-write, what you have here.
These diversions to fractals and 'fractal images' contribute nothing at all to the discussion nor to the "theory" under consideration. We all know you think you are working with something that has fractal characteristics. You have yet to demonstrate or conclusively justify this, or explain it, you are only using it as a 'magic wand' to leap past the very real problems that exist in your "theory" and in the real issues of how chemistry becomes biology and how biology becomes intelligent. Sweeping the problems under the rug and asserting that complex molecules are just like simple molecules, and organisms are just like complex molecules, and intelligence is just like a simple organism accomplishes nothing. It adds no new insights, it masks the real problems, and it lies about the differences that we observe at all these levels.
N. Wells has made some highly relevant and applicable points. To put it mildly. I agree entirely with his critique, and add on my own in-line with your latest manifesto.
You have nothing to offer. As always, no answer is better than your wrong answer. "I don't know" trumps a mistaken "I do know" every time. You don't know, and you at least have the beginnings of a suspicion that this might be true. It is the only insight you might have that has any hope of being correct.
As I continue to note -- your theory is both unique and true. Tragically where it is unique it is not true and where it is true it is not unique. Indeed, it is so far from unique as to count as banal.
|Date: 2013/11/10 07:38:29, Link|
Oh, goodie, yet another version, once again without version control or identifying marks that signify changes to the document. Just what the world needs, another cow-pattie.
We've been pointing out since long before your appearance here that there is vastly more work yet to be done than the pitiful bits in your document. In fact, your document does not reduce the amount of work required, and may well increase it. The increase is due to having to overcome the unfortunate errors and misdirections continued in your 'masterpiece'.
This amounts to surrender in the face of the problem. Your definition of intelligence has become both circular and non-emergent. Yes, the word 'emergent' appears in your logorrhea, but the concept has vanished. Intelligence isn't something that emerges from the simpler behavior of lower scales of complexity, it is applied from above -- a top-down 'emergence' is not emergent at all.
I've been saying all along that you've been addressing the real problems of emergence by sweeping the major issues under a rug. You've now rolled up the rug and thrown it under a bus.
If you really intend for that gibberish to be taken as a 'bottom up' description of emergence, well, it's worse now then ever before. You use undefined terms to describe the generation of operationally undefined entities, using a mix of analogical, metaphoric, and allegedly literal speech, with no clear or consistent conceptualization exhibited.
What is 'learning'? How are the levels self-similar? What makes this fractal? (as already noted by others, 'self-similarity' is not a sufficient condition for a thing to be called 'fractal'.)
Look, here's the 'emergence' problem in its most over-simplified form -- how do sodium and chlorine generate the specific taste of salt when neither sodium nor chlorine in themselves exhibit a salty taste?
Your problem is, ahem, considerably more complex. But this example should serve to show that merely asserting that the various levels of 'emergence' or 'emergent entities' are "self similar". What precisely is similar in form or likeness from level to level? And how do things that are not present at lower levels arise from the behavior of things at those lower levels? You still haven't come within lightyears of grappling with this issue. And I daresay you won't ever get any closer than you are now.
Totally gibberish and self-absorbed pseudo-intellectual masturbation.
Consistent is as consistent does, and Gary consistently manages to take a disaster and make it worse. Perhaps the typhoon that devastated the Philippines should be renamed 'Gary' in his dishonor.
Gary, you continue to miss when you attempt to grapple with the problem of emergence. You understand that problem even less well than you understand fractals -- and you have no understanding of fractals at all.
Words are not magic wands that you can wave around to get the results you so desperately want. You are treating this problematic of the origination of intelligence, the problematic of emergence, as something to be solved by a spell -- the careful crafting of words without attention to meaning but for the sake of their contagious likeness to things that impress you in order to placate the spirits and address your own unease at the problems you think you are addressing. You fail, as all such spell making attempts must. Words have meaning, Gary, something you seem to have a very weak grasp on.
And your ability to write tortured prose is unmatched -- consider only "Where many sense something making sense" -- what a masterpiece of the abuse of English. Particularly given how easy it would be to craft this fragment without the repeat of 'sense' in 2 distinct meanings and with greater focus on conveying the core idea (insofar as there is one).
|Date: 2013/11/11 07:45:48, Link|
'According to the fixed law of gravity'? Gravity? Really? Gravity??
Your madness knows no bounds. Tell me Gary, what role does gravity play in ionic bonding? What role does it play in covalent bonding? What role does it play in enzyme functions? What role does it play in DNA duplication?
What is the relationship between gravity and thermodynamics?
What role does gravity lay in metabolism? In catabolism?
Sheesh -- there aren't enough face palms in the universe.
|Date: 2013/11/11 08:26:28, Link|
No, that was Gary writing on his own behalf -- or blatant plagiarism, as it is not shown as a quote in any way.
It is offered up as an improvement over the (unattributed) Darwin quote which does not mention gravity and speaks of a plurality of laws operating to produce the intricacies of what we see around us.
At best, and Gary so rarely approaches 'best', it is an exaggeration for effect. Something else Gary does often, but poorly.
|Date: 2013/11/11 09:08:53, Link|
My bad -- I thought I had thoroughly scanned the quoted material, but obviously I missed the word 'gravity' near the end.
|Date: 2013/11/12 09:47:40, Link|
Do we have the reoccurrence of the page bug in the thread dedicated to Gary Gaulin?
I posted a reply but it didn't show up. I left the site, came back and saw I was listed as author of the most recent post, but that post is still not visible or accessible.
Thanks for checking/fixing or clarifying what I'm doing wrong, as the case may be.
ETA: And now, roughly half an hour later, there's a new post in the thread, at the bottom of the page, and no sign of mine.
|Date: 2013/11/12 15:32:32, Link|
You're too kind ;-)
It had little that was genuinely new, but that's to be expected given what it was addressed to.
But definitely an annoying surprise, I worked hard on that response (partially due to the pita of adding 'in line' remarks).
|Date: 2013/11/13 07:50:15, Link|
No, Gary. This explains nothing, nor does your "theory" -- least of all at the level of the alleged 'molecular intelligence'.
You assert that molecules self assemble due to 'force guided' interactions, which may be all well and good, assuming you mean the standard forces of chemistry and physics.
But you attempt to squeeze the concept of 'control' in there, and it just won't fit. Control only applies when there is a distinguishable difference between the controlled and uncontrolled scenarios. At the level of atoms and molecules, there isn't -- you are assuming facts not in evidence (to put it mildly). The 'self assembly' of molecules is simply chemistry, with no distinction available between the alleged controlled changes and the uncontrolled changes. Your only 'out' is to assert that everything everywhere is 'intelligent', which rather renders the concept useless. Meaningless, even.
There are all the problems I pointed out tens of pages ago -- what happens to 'molecular intelligence' when atoms are switched out of molecules (as happens constantly) and when molecules are replaced in cells (as happens constantly)? Where does the 'learning' go?
What you are after is some explanation that can account for structures performing functions that supervene on the particular elements that make up the structures at any given time. Which pretty much rules out 'molecular intelligence' as a concept, because molecules would be the lowest level of element available on which systems could be built and emergent behavior supervene.
I.e., you've 'solved' the problem by sweeping it under the rug.
You work relies entirely too much on your model. The feedback loops extend from the model to the theory and back. But a model is only as good as the underlying reality it attempts to represent. Where is your feedback loop to the real world?
More importantly, before building a model, or a theory, you must have a set of facts and observations that you intend to model and to explain. The model is not the explanation of the theory. The 'theory', insofar as it is merely the explanation of the model, is of no more use than the rule book for Space Invaders.
Your diagram is part of the problem, You show reciprocal connections between the various levels, with no explanation of what's going on, yet that is precisely the problem to be solved. WHAT connects molecules to cells and cells to organisms in a 'reciprocal' fashion? How do molecular systems lead to the emergence of cells? How do cellular systems lead to the emergence of higher orders of life? Where and how do sentience and intelligence emerge?
You've bundled all that into a set of "concepts" that switch back and forth between hiding the problem and declaring it a non-problem due to the ubiquity of intelligence.
Until you can address the problems of emergence, the very real conflict between your 4 criteria, which appear to be neither necessary [witness 'molecular intelligence' which exhibits only 2 of the 4] nor sufficient [witness all the commonly understood examples of 'intelligence' which do not involve motor control] and the 'facts on the ground' in the real world will remain a show-stopper for your "theory".
Your model is of precisely no use in settling the issues because the model is only modeling the 'theory'. You need the real thing, and an understanding of the real thing, to build a theory which might then generate a model. Otherwise, you're writing fantasy.
|Date: 2013/11/14 06:47:23, Link|
So you're still clueless about the value of a version control system.
That's pitiful, especially for someone who has pretensions of being an 'award winning' coder.
|Date: 2013/11/14 07:56:13, Link|
And how many times have you said just that before now?
Quite a few, as I recall. Why should we expect this version to be any more 'final' than any of its predecessors?
Particularly because you've not addressed any of the many many scientific errors, contradictions, and other flaws that exist throughout your paper.
If you were to actually spend some time fixing your 'theory' and then revising your model, instead of trying to fine-tune your model and your 'theory' so they are better in synch with each other, things would go far better for you.
|Date: 2013/11/14 08:01:47, Link|
Just for starters, your first sentence is self-contradictory.
Under the usual causal interpretation of 'design', things that are designed are not emergent, and things that are emergent are not designed.
Given that you explicitly link a 'creator' into your notion, it is all but impossible to take any other reading than the above.
Which, as noted, renders your approach self-contradictory from the start. You are smashing together disparate and conflicting concepts to no good end.
I would guess that this is because you find certain terms attractive, in a stronger sense of the term than the esthetic sense, and feel that their inclusion renders your "theory" richer and more explanatory than it would otherwise be. Just as with your tortured and entirely inappropriate use of 'fractal' you are now banging on about 'designed' and 'emergent' as equivalent or somehow essentially related.
So as usual we see your problems lie not in the writing, god-awful though that certainly is, but in the underlying concepts. You have a poorly conceptualized set of floating abstractions linked together by nothing more than your assertions and your emotional reactions to the words and the way they play in the work of others.
|Date: 2013/11/14 11:21:03, Link|
Told you you weren't finished.
And what do you mean 'version control'? You're not using a versioning system, let alone a version control system.
Try assigning a new version number to your document each time you make a change that might get shared.
|Date: 2013/11/14 12:42:22, Link|
Trust me, Gary, no one cherishes your multiple versions with no identification as to which is which.
That is why you need a version control system -- so you can impose a tiny bit of unexpected order onto the otherwise utterly chaotic and maximally messy state of your concepts and their capture in a document.
Were I willing to delude you with positive assessment, I would claim something along the lines of how important versioning is so that future historians of science and track the changes and improvements [sic] you've made as the work developed over time.
We all know that's a load of bull-hooey -- nobody's going to be looking back at the changes in your effluent over time. But it would still be a good idea for you to maintain a version trail for your many changes. At the worst, having to take the time to version each revision might slow down your furious pace so that you could actually think bout what you're doing, rather than just emitting it.
A version control system (such as Git/GitHub) would also provide you with off-site backup of your various versions with the ability to compare and contrast previous versions with each other and with changes you are considering.
This is basic 'computer science 101' level stuff, you know.
It's embarrassing that you try to pretend it's an optional extra.
All the previously raised criticisms stand as well.
You are asserting, not predicting. You are contradicting yourself. You are not providing any explanation of anything, let alone anything in the real natural world.
|Date: 2013/11/14 14:36:22, Link|
So what he's really doing is working on a new, de-hanced script for 'Plan 9 from Outer Space'?
Suddenly, it all becomes much clearer (for a certain meaning of 'clearer' of course).
|Date: 2013/11/15 08:30:23, Link|
So parthenogenic species exhibit solely 'molecular intelligence'?
Once more you dive into assuming facts not in evidence and relying on the model built from your 'theory' to confirm your 'theory' while updating your 'theory' based on what the model shows you. Circular and with no reference to the real world of nature whatsoever.
You have now tossed emergence and fractal under the bus, and have swept away the problem of the emergence of intelligence and life from non-living matter by implying a sort of 'pan-intelligence-ism'.
Vogon poetry would be more informative.
|Date: 2013/11/15 09:25:34, Link|
It is not that something has to be added to the paragraph, it is that you assert what is obviously an error.
Cellular intelligence is "defined" as being expressed through two parts, a father and a mother.
One of these is missing in parthenogenesis.
Almost like how 2 of the 4 criteria for intelligence are missing at the 'molecular intelligence' level.
It's almost odd how you continue to make absolute statements of necessary conditions that you promptly violate so as to fit your preconceptions into your latest stream-of-consciousness notion.
|Date: 2013/11/15 12:12:17, Link|
Except, of course, that the only 'progress' you have been making is to craft your document to be less and less specific and more and more banal. All without the tiniest shred of explanatory power.
You assert much, but demonstrate little. By which I mean, you demonstrate nothing at all.
Everyone seems to know this except you. Why is that, do you suppose?
Can you provide a single explanation for a fact or state of affairs in the natural world that is not already known to science? Does your 'theory' make any predictions of anything concrete and not already known? Does your 'theory' ever get around to justifying the use of the word 'intelligence' and its variants as being anything other than analogical and parasitic on what the rest of us know intelligence to be?
I think the answer is pretty clearly and demonstrably 'NO!'
|Date: 2013/11/16 08:20:58, Link|
Here's commentary on the first sentence:
This theory [sic] predicts [emphatically not, it asserts that we [humans or living beings generally?] are an intelligent design [sic -- as opposed to unintelligent design or intelligently produced but undesigned? What exactly is an 'intelligent design' and when/where/how does production of the designed occur? What 'level' of intelligence is it? Is it compound, as it is alleged 'we' are?] containing [apparently by design] three self-similar levels of intelligence [what constitutes a level of intelligence? In what specific respects are they self-similar? Is it just in that they are all called 'intelligent'? Are there only 3 levels? Is the overall creator being alluded to also a 3-level intelligence? Does it have a neural brain?] working together as one [one what? 'intelligence'? doing what work? working together how?] to control our physical actions. [as opposed to what? non-physical actions? physical processes and/or events that are not actions?]
And it descends from there into worse and worse crimes against the language and against conceptual rigor.
A partial save of this mess could be made were the details actually worked out in later sections of the paper. As it stands, they aren't, and are unlikely ever to be.
The hard problems remain defined away and/or swept under the rug.
How does 'molecular intelligence' emerge from the behavior of matter?
What is it that emerges -- how, specifically is it more than, other than, the simple laws of physics and chemistry?
In what possible non-analogical sense are genomes learning systems?
It looks very much like the "handling" (hand-waving rather than explanation) of parthenogenesis is misplaced by being in this section when reproduction with Father/Mother [sic] is discussed in the 'second level'.
The final half of the third sentence is gibberish at a positively Vogon poetry level.
And it avoids addressing the problem of self-assembly, which must be addressed before 'self-replication' can become an issue. How do sperm and egg cells manage to self-assemble in the first place, particularly in the storm of thermodynamic activity that works very much against the building up of complexity?
It is a fancy of (bad) speech to assert that 'molecular intelligence' adds a neural brain. There are a host of issues here, and they've all just been swept under the rug in this casual, sloppy, and conceptually incoherent word salad. Not least of the difficulties is the claim that the brain [neural is surely a pointless modifier, what other sorts of brain are there?] is 'added' rather than emerges as a feature, fully integrated into the biological system that makes up the body.
And again the problem of assembly raises its head -- how do such complex structures arise in the face of the pressures of thermodynamic chaos at the atomic and molecular scales?
The final four sentences are nothing but bafflegab and irrelevancies. At best, they present a few irrelevant matters of reproduction and parenting behavior which remain unexplained. At worst, they are the pious nonsense of religion, especially the more wispy and fantasy laden forms of Christianity. They add nothing whatsoever to our understanding nor to the alleged explanatory capabilities of what is, one would think, to come later.
Sadly, later never comes.
|Date: 2013/11/16 09:34:50, Link|
Sorry, but adding and underlining the word 'nonrandom' helps not at all.
How is self-assembly non-random? In contrast to what chemical behaviors that you take to be random?
We do not see, anywhere, truly random behavior at the level of atoms and molecules. Sodium will always form ionic bonds with chlorine when they are in proximity and have sufficient energy. Covalent bonds will form when the appropriate chemical species with the appropriate activation energies are in proximity. Equilibrium reactions will proceed as prescribed by the equilibrium constants, favoring either reactants or products depending solely on species, energies, volumes, etc.
Enzymes will deterministically catalyze the appropriate reactions when the appropriate chemical species and energies are available.
To call any chemical process 'nonrandom' is to commit a non sequitur. All chemical processes are nonrandom, i.e., exhibit lawful behavior.
You are making a contrast between random and nonrandom behavior of matter. But we seem to have exactly zero cases of 'random behavior' of atoms and molecules. So what exactly are you explaining or clarifying by adding the apparently redundant assertion that 'molecular intelligence' arises from the nonrandom behavior of matter?
Your response merely highlights your ignorance and your inability to explain core 'concepts' in your "theory".
|Date: 2013/11/16 11:04:23, Link|
What has your "theory" produced for systems biology? Your sad little model and your irrelevant little 'theory' are merely reflections of each other, having no more to do with the real natural world than Space Invaders has to do with exobiology.
Once again you are asserting facts not in evidence.
|Date: 2013/11/16 11:23:51, Link|
The question was, and remains, what has you "theory" contributed to systems biology?
The answer sure appears to be 'nothing at all'.
Comparisons to Darwin are absurd in the extreme, not least because Darwin launched the most significant reconceptualization of biology in a millennium.
You've launched gales of hysterical laughter.
Darwin's influence has been immense.
Your influence is entirely imaginary.
But do feel free to correct me with respect to your impact and/or influence. Tell us all what contributions your "theory" has made to systems biology.
Not what influences you think it will have or should have, what has it actually contributed.
|Date: 2013/11/16 11:50:31, Link|
Again, entirely irrelevant.
Even were it to be the case that the modern evolutionary synthesis were entirely wrong, that would avail your case not at all.
The failure of all other systems of biology would not advance your "theory" one whit.
So what has your 'theory' contributed to systems biology?
You made the claim, emphatically and without caveat. In which case, surely you are able to substantiate the claim?
What has your 'theory' contributed to system biology? Not the work or hypotheses of theories of others whose work you claim to be leveraging. Not what you think it could or might someday or other hypothetical, for there was nothing hypothetical in or about your assertion.
Support it or retract it. What has your 'theory' contributed to systems biology?
|Date: 2013/11/16 12:32:28, Link|
In other words, more self-congratulatory bluster.
You have yet to produce an actual prediction from out of your "theory". Certainly no predictions appear to follow from what is asserted therein.
So let's revert back to my earlier question from today: What do you think you are adding to the 'theory' when you state that 'molecular intelligence' emerges from the nonrandom behavior of matter?
What nonrandom behavior of matter?
Chemistry and physics describe the inescapable laws, and inescapably lawful behavior of matter. What exception(s) are you carving out? What produces them? How can they be distinguished from the other lawful behavior of matter?
How is self-assembly nonrandom, particularly in light of the fact that salt, sodium chloride, forms non randomly from the mix of sodium and chlorine, given the right energies and densities of the substances in question. And sodium chloride in aqueous solution self-assembles into lovely little crystals as the water is evaporated away. Are you claiming that 'molecular intelligence' is involved here? or that 'molecular intelligence' similarly forms when the right substances interact according to the usual laws of chemistry and physics? Or that it self assembles in the same fashion as crystals of table salt when aqueous solutions of NaCl are heated so the liquid evaporates?
Clarify this for us -- you added the word and presented it as your response to my question regarding how things like egg cells, sperm cells, neurons, and other cellular components of biology emerge in the face of the pressures of the thermodynamic chaos at the atomic and molecular scales? How do these things arise in the face of the second law of thermodynamics?
|Date: 2013/11/16 13:38:17, Link|
But you have yet to define or clarify what you mean by 'intelligent cause.' This leads to no end of unfortunate problems.
Worse, you go on and on about 'nonrandom behavior of matter' as if you were distinguishing nonrandom from random behavior of matter. I am asking you to justify the distinction, particularly in terms of the self-assembly of molecules from atoms and the alleged emergence of 'molecular intelligence', another undefined term.
Matter does not behave randomly. Both chemistry and physics provide a rather fully worked out set of theories that describe the entirely nonrandom behavior of molecules. Sodium and Chlorine will always bond ionically, in a one to one ratio, given suitable proximity of the chemical species and sufficient energy. There's nothing random about it.
Likewise, NaCl crystalizes in a regular and nonrandom fashion from an aqueous solution as the water is evaporated.
So what is the point of your insistence upon the behavior of matter as 'nonrandom'?
You added the term to 'explain' the emergence of 'molecular intelligence'. Do you see now that it does no such thing? Or is the ionic bonding of sodium chloride and/or the regular crystal formation of it in its solid form to be taken as instances of 'molecular intelligence'?
In which case, of what use is the new terminology?
Where's the intelligence?
Your reliance on your model continues to be one of the more ludicrous bits of your repertoire. Your model is based on your 'theory' and tweaked until it matches the 'theory'. Similarly, your 'theory' relies on your model for confirmation and for the facts of the matter which you believe you are explaining. Nowhere does the real world of nature intrude in your perfectly circular self-contained delusional system. This is not a trivial problem.
What specific facts of the real world do you attempt to explain?
What explanation do you provide?
How is this any different from what we already have?
|Date: 2013/11/16 14:57:13, Link|
Who, pray tell, do you count amongst those who, with knowledge of its content, consider your paper a 'theory'?
The majority has judged it to be something else entirely.
Now you claim that those who judge it not to be a 'theory' are in a minority. To the best of my knowledge and recollection, no one in this thread has agreed that you have a genuine theory. Nor can I recall anyone at Talk Rational who agreed that you had a genuine theory.
Once again you are called upon to defend this outrageously grandiose claim.
|Date: 2013/11/17 07:32:22, Link|
The structure and verbiage are improving.
A pity the same cannot be said for the underlying ideas.
Although there is this monstrous construction:
I've underlined the offending bit of bad grammar. And 'where in' should be 'wherein'.
But I note you are still hung up on 'self replication', ignoring the more fundamental problem of initial assembly.
Earlier you attempted, but failed, to address this by asserting that it was the 'nonrandom' behavior of matter that was responsible. I've been asking for clarification of this, as we appear to have precisely zero examples of the random behavior of matter.
We understand how thermodynamics permits, and typically favors, the production of such simple molecules as sodium chloride, the various covalently bonded molecules, and accounts for the relative proportion of reactants to products in equilibrium reactions. But we also see that in general thermodynamics works against the formation of increasingly complex structures, especially complex layered structures. So 'nonrandom' behavior simply doesn't have any explanatory power when it comes to identifying or explaining occurrences of 'molecular intelligence' as opposed to unintelligent molecular behavior as is observed and explained by chemistry and physics.
You need to give that whole layer a complete reworking so that you actually have something other than a useless redefinition that smuggles in facts not in evidence in support of your floating abstraction called 'molecular intelligence'.
There are genuine problems here and they strike at the foundations of your notions. Until you address this issue, the rest of your work can be discarded as fantasy, and not a very good fantasy at that.
Could this be why there is no modeling of 'molecular intelligence' in your vaunted software?
|Date: 2013/11/17 10:01:13, Link|