AE Public Forum

Post by sparc
Quote 9 Robert Byers March 28, 2014 at 8:05 pm
The bible is a witness in good standing until proven otherwise. Just like in court.
So the ark story is true. they even make movies about it and movies are true
they tell us otherwise there would not be the idea about movies documenting this or that cause or identity as a important thing.
If I had been aware of this fact I would have repented years before. On second thougt it may well be that Bob is just pissing off BA77.

Post by sparc
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 28 2014,22:28) Quote (damitall @ Mar. 27 2014,10:20) Quote (Learned Hand @ Mar. 27 2014,17:06)Now you're just ducking the issue.
There's a joke in there somewhere about the bill, but I can't be bothered to think of it.
Somebody's quacking up?

(Or is that too Daffy?)
Ente gut, alles gut!

Post by NoName
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 27 2014,18:31)Honestly, AI is for vacuum cleaners and Eliza chatbots.

Proving, as if more evidence were required, that you are entirely ignorant of every single aspect of AI and Cognitive Science.  It is not that the statement is false, it is the clear implication that AI is only for those things.
  Quote
Cognitive science from David Heiserman and Arnold Trehub (and others) for how the human brain works creates models that Planet Source Code rates as awesome and incredible.
And the dishonesty continues.  All Planet Source Code is concerned about is the coding.  In no way is there an interest or concern for the associated claims that happen to accompany the code.
Your greatest achievement to date is to demonstrate that even chronically stupid, ignorant, uninformed, and arrogant people can write code that someone (or even some five) will find acceptable..
Whoopee.
Your claims to have based your "theory" and/or your software in the work of Trehub and Heiserman are questionable at best.  We've been over all that before, repeatedly, and your claims have not come out well.
Further, to push your association with Heiserman's publications after claiming that AI is good only for vacuum cleaners and Eliza chatbots is hypocrisy on a grand scale.
If Heiserman's work is not AI, nothing is.

  Quote What both describe for a circuit is contained in the Theory of Intelligent Design that further develops their time tested models and theory.
Bullshit.  There is no circuit contained in your ridiculous "theory", or there wasn't in the last version [of the unversioned document that changes out from under reviewers] I reviewed.  Nor has it been shown that your efforts have extended or developed anyone's models or theories.
We do, however, well recall that your usage of terminology from Cognitive Science cannot even be called idiosyncratic -- it is simply wrong.
Your "theory" is incoherent, self-contradictory, incapable of explaining vast swaths of behavior commonly taken to be intelligent, and would spoil even toilet paper were it printed on that medium.  This has been established beyond dispute.
It is vastly amusing to see how, over the last tens of pages, you have dropped discussion of your "theory" to focus solely on your software.  And now that your software has received the same sort of drubbing that your "theory" was subjected to, now suddenly the "theory" is back on the scene.  Is it more a matter of fleeing your most recent disaster or a matter of switching contexts in hope that others have forgotten how thoroughly demolished your other output has been?
Neither your "theory" nor your software offers any value whatsoever save as a target for well-deserved ridicule.

Quote Molecular and cellular intelligence levels are simply the result of how biological systems ended up sorting themselves out. And it's outright scientifically unethical to change the results of many experiments that all together clearly indicate only one thing is even possible. Constant demands for more and more evidence brushes all that off, by suggesting I can change where the evidence has already led, as already well enough explained in the theory.
No one is asking for 'more' evidence -- we are asking for any evidence.  To date, you have provided none.
The 'scientifically unethical' behavior is all yours Gary.
Among other things, you charge that others are "changing the results of many experiments that indicate only one thing is even possible."  This is not only a flat-out lie when asserted by you against your opponents, it is a statement that is true in every respect when applied to your behavior and your work.
I've posted references to a number of sources that demonstrate conclusively that the "model" developed and used in your IDLab nonsense has no basis whatsoever in biological reality.  You are ignoring the results of decades of research that all conclusively demonstrate that work such as yours has zero applicability to biological entities.

Intelligent creatures do not maintain grid-based maps of their milieu.
Intelligent creatures do not pre-calculate nor store in memory the complete set of "possible paths" available to them on a moment by moment basis.
Those two facts alone are sufficient to invalidate the entire sweep of claims you make for your software having any relevance to biology.

And you have the unmitigated gall to claim that we are the ones 'changing the results of 'many experiments'.
Worse, you are claiming that there are, in fact, 'many experiments' that show that "only one thing [presumably yours] is even possible".

I challenge you to provide even a single experiment that shows that.  You claim 'many', I claim zero.  It should be easy to defeat my claim -- you just have to provide a record of a single experiment that supports your claim.
Note, of course, that 'experiment' does not count the output of your software, for that has zero biological applicability nor do software outputs typically count as 'experiments' when there is no reality-grounded model in a reality-grounded context with a set of varying conditions which are shown to affect results in a manner consistent with real results in the target situation(s).

Your 'experiments' are as valid for determining how biological systems learn or behave as the aerodynamics of cloud particles in a pig-shaped cloud are for determining the existence of flying pigs.

Post by afarensis
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 27 2014,17:34)Slimy Sal could be useful after all.
But would the circuits be logical if they used Sal?

Post by k.e..
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 28 2014,01:31)Honestly, AI is for vacuum cleaners and Eliza chatbots.

Cognitive science from David Heiserman and Arnold Trehub (and others) for how the human brain works creates models that Planet Source Code rates as awesome and incredible.



Arnold Trehub, "The Cognitive Brain", MIT Press 1991, Chapter 9, Page 158, Fig 9.3
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....ub....b
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....er9.pdf

David L. Heiserman "How to Build Your Own Self-Programming Robot" TAB Books 1979
http://www.beam-wiki.org/wiki.......avid_L.

What both describe for a circuit is contained in the Theory of Intelligent Design that further develops their time tested models and theory.

Molecular and cellular intelligence levels are simply the result of how biological systems ended up sorting themselves out. And it's outright scientifically unethical to change the results of many experiments that all together clearly indicate only one thing is even possible. Constant demands for more and more evidence brushes all that off, by suggesting I can change where the evidence has already led, as already well enough explained in the theory.
No Gary "what both describe for a circuit..." is nothing whatsoever on any planet in the universe to do with Intelligent Design. Except that in your case your gibberish is barely comprehensible English, are you an alien?

In fact it is you who is "outright scientifically unethical" by making the claim that their work supports Intelligent Design. If you are convinced otherwise feel free to ask them.

You have NO evidence for "Molecular and cellular intelligence levels are simply the result of how biological systems ended up sorting themselves out"

If you think you have evidence then produce it.

Post by N.Wells
We were discussing Heiserman.  How come Trehub doesn't cite any of Heiserman's works if Heiserman is discussing the process that "pertain[s] to the underlying process that produces REAL intelligence, not ARTIFICIAL Intelligence"?

Post by Quack
Slimy Sal could be useful after all.

Post by GaryGaulin
Honestly, AI is for vacuum cleaners and Eliza chatbots.

Cognitive science from David Heiserman and Arnold Trehub (and others) for how the human brain works creates models that Planet Source Code rates as awesome and incredible.



Arnold Trehub, "The Cognitive Brain", MIT Press 1991, Chapter 9, Page 158, Fig 9.3
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....ub....b
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....er9.pdf

David L. Heiserman "How to Build Your Own Self-Programming Robot" TAB Books 1979
http://www.beam-wiki.org/wiki.......avid_L.

What both describe for a circuit is contained in the Theory of Intelligent Design that further develops their time tested models and theory.

Molecular and cellular intelligence levels are simply the result of how biological systems ended up sorting themselves out. And it's outright scientifically unethical to change the results of many experiments that all together clearly indicate only one thing is even possible. Constant demands for more and more evidence brushes all that off, by suggesting I can change where the evidence has already led, as already well enough explained in the theory.

Post by Richardthughes
Quote (damitall @ Mar. 27 2014,11:20) Quote (Learned Hand @ Mar. 27 2014,17:06)Now you're just ducking the issue.
There's a joke in there somewhere about the bill, but I can't be bothered to think of it.
How do you make a duck into a great soul singer?



....



Put him in the microwave until his bill whithers.

Post by damitall
Quote (Learned Hand @ Mar. 27 2014,17:06)Now you're just ducking the issue.
There's a joke in there somewhere about the bill, but I can't be bothered to think of it.

Post by Learned Hand
Now you're just ducking the issue.

Post by Jim_Wynne
The funny and/or frightening thing about all of this AI stuff is that GG, at some point way up the thread, claimed that his program is creating *actual* intelligence and not simulated or artificial intelligence.  

Paraphrasing Charles Babbage, I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke that sort of thinking.

Post by k.e..
Quote (Learned Hand @ Mar. 27 2014,16:54)I think that's what they call a "typical turnabout accusation," with a side of straw man dipped in the oil of red herring and set alight with the flame of persecution.
If it walks like a canard and talks like a canard its a canard.

Post by k.e..
N. Wells said Quote More importantly, you need to document the existence of molecular intelligence, to show that your bug has any relevance to real animals and the origins of intelligence, and so forth.

Gary has failed on all those counts AND KEEPS MOVING THE GOALPOSTS.

Gary's Goalpost moving Galloping Gibberish.

Post by Learned Hand
I think that's what they call a "typical turnabout accusation," with a side of straw man dipped in the oil of red herring and set alight with the flame of persecution.

Post by k.e..
Quote (NoName @ Mar. 27 2014,16:26)Exactly like his 'theory' that fails to explain or even to address how theories are generated by acts of intelligence.

So the question of the day is "Is Gary too stupid to see this, or too blinded by his prejudices or simply performing 'sit down effluent comedy?"
He's performing Identity Politics à la Autism.

Post by N.Wells
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 26 2014,21:55) Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 26 2014,21:09)We aren't arguing over whether it works in your model, or whether Heiserman's definitions work for creating AI algorithms.
No we are not arguing that because David Heiserman's pertained to the underlying process that produces REAL intelligence, not ARTIFICIAL Intelligence.

Stop moving the goalposts, please.
Non-responsive, again.

You said, "In either case though, an unintelligent grid network still adds a remarkable ability to the IDLab critter, that can use either to add to its intelligent behavior. My David Heiserman based operational definitions for intelligence are now a Robotics101 sort of thing, not a controversial concept ......."

I agreed, saying "we aren't arguing over whether it works in your model, or whether Heiserman's definitions work for creating AI algorithms."  

You responded, "No we are not arguing that because David Heiserman's pertained to the underlying process that produces REAL intelligence, not ARTIFICIAL Intelligence.  Stop moving the goalposts, please."

I'm not shifting goalposts there: I'm agreeing with you.  We aren't arguing those matters, so your harping on my agreeing with you constitutes a rather looney shifting of goalposts on your part relative to our principal issues over your larger claims about the origin of intelligence, supposed "molecular intelligence", and so on

Heiserman viewed his robot AI solely as artificial intelligence.  He referred to it as evolutionary because it was a bottom-up style of learning about the environment by exploring it, and starting with simple behaviors that become more complex, rather than a top-down approach to AI.  As far as I know, he didn't claim to have shown how animal evolution worked or evolved (although it is reasonable to assume that it developed from simple to complex).   You are once again asserting without demonstration that his type of AI is exactly the same as all real biological intelligence, but you need to demonstrate that organisms work the way you are claiming.  More importantly, you need to document the existence of molecular intelligence, to show that your bug has any relevance to real animals and the origins of intelligence, and so forth.

Post by NoName
Exactly like his 'theory' that fails to explain or even to address how theories are generated by acts of intelligence.

So the question of the day is "Is Gary too stupid to see this, or too blinded by his prejudices or simply performing 'sit down effluent comedy?"

Post by k.e..
Noname said Quote Arguably, your central error here, as in your "theory" is your refusal to deal with goals.  Without the concept of 'goal' in your "models", you cannot account for why things behave nor can you account for any aspect of how they behave.

Precisely.
Ironically Gary's claim is that goal posts have been moved.
Why? IDists can't tolerate a natural world without their Overlord in Heaven. If intelligence arose by Evolution which CAN be computer modeled by GAs (and Intelligence  itself by Neural Networks) where does that leave their Overlord in Heaven? Well it leaves Her back in church as a belief system not the cause of everything. In his own little mind his goals are the same old ID tropes. God in Heaven or the Intelligent Designer, take your pick, made the world and Evolution is wrong.

Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
There is an overwhelming record of people not being able to engage the topic with civility, even if you simply look at what happened here. There are many fora available, we don't need to become yet another smoking ruin in terms of discussion.