news aggregator
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by NoName
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 28 2014,20:48)...
But that's for another model with this sort of thing in it.
...
A turd in a punchbowl is another 'model' with this sort of thing in it.
It's 'bowl' Gary, not 'bowel'. While you may be comfortable throwing any old thing into the former, as you do your "model", your "model" nonetheless resembles the output of the latter.
Your "model" is entirely a fantasy -- is it a coincidence that games from the Avalon Hill battle games up through D&D and its many cousins and offspring all use a hex grid for mapping and movement? Or is it a tragedy that you floundered for months before 'discovering' the utility of hex grids for certain kinds of movement-based representations?
Yet in real life, Napoleon is not limited to one of six directions in which he can move either himself or his troops. Neither is the Lich of Haunted Hollow.
The stumbling block in both cases is that they do not map well onto 3D situations nor do they readily model 'grasp' or 'extended reach' scenarios. Nor do the persons or players have 'all possible paths' stored in memory. There would be huge performance problems with that -- an area you are doubtlessly familiar with, albeit in a slightly different context.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 28 2014,20:48)...
But that's for another model with this sort of thing in it.
...
A turd in a punchbowl is another 'model' with this sort of thing in it.
It's 'bowl' Gary, not 'bowel'. While you may be comfortable throwing any old thing into the former, as you do your "model", your "model" nonetheless resembles the output of the latter.
Your "model" is entirely a fantasy -- is it a coincidence that games from the Avalon Hill battle games up through D&D and its many cousins and offspring all use a hex grid for mapping and movement? Or is it a tragedy that you floundered for months before 'discovering' the utility of hex grids for certain kinds of movement-based representations?
Yet in real life, Napoleon is not limited to one of six directions in which he can move either himself or his troops. Neither is the Lich of Haunted Hollow.
The stumbling block in both cases is that they do not map well onto 3D situations nor do they readily model 'grasp' or 'extended reach' scenarios. Nor do the persons or players have 'all possible paths' stored in memory. There would be huge performance problems with that -- an area you are doubtlessly familiar with, albeit in a slightly different context.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by NoName
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner in the Denser than Neutronium department.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner in the Denser than Neutronium department.
Categories: AE Public BB
The Bathroom Wall
Post by Schroedinger's Dog
Ed Kagin, co-founder of Camp Quest, passed away on March 27. :(
Ed Kagin, co-founder of Camp Quest, passed away on March 27. :(
Categories: AE Public BB
The Bathroom Wall
Post by Schroedinger's Dog
I will say absolutely nothing about all this!
I will say absolutely nothing about all this!
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
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.
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.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
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!
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!
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
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.
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.
Categories: AE Public BB
Young Cosmos
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?
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 27 2014,17:34)Slimy Sal could be useful after all.
But would the circuits be logical if they used Sal?
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
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.
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.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
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"?
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"?
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
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.
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.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
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.
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.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
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.
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.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by Learned Hand
Now you're just ducking the issue.
Now you're just ducking the issue.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
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.
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.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
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.
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.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
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.
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.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
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.
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.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
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.
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.
Categories: AE Public BB
