news aggregator

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.

In ENV, Jay Richards opines that "host Neil deGrasse Tyson and the Cosmos producers have enshrouded this basic science with the same materialist narrative we've come to expect. Pre-modern peoples universally see false patterns and portents in the heavens, and invariably see the irregular specter of comets as portents of doom. We get the stereotypical contrast between a "prescientific world ruled by fear" - signaled by a cartoon drawing of a malevolent figure wearing a bishop's miter - and the emergence of modern science, which finally delivered us from such obscurantism."

"This way of framing the history of science, however, requires a great deal of distortion and misrepresentation, especially when it comes to the figure of Isaac Newton. With Newton, the Cosmos writers encountered a dilemma: Either ignore his frankly religious and theistic view of reality, or misrepresent and compartmentalize it. They chose the latter course.

More...

ScienceDaily reports "New findings show that much of the mineral from which bone is made consists of 'goo' trapped between tiny crystals, allowing movement between them. It is this flexibility that stops bones from shattering."

"Latest research shows that the chemical citrate - a by-product of natural cell metabolism - is mixed with water to create a viscous fluid that is trapped between the nano-scale crystals that form our bones. This fluid allows enough movement, or 'slip', between these crystals so that bones are flexible, and don't shatter under pressure. It is the inbuilt shock absorber in bone that, until now, was unknown."

More (hard to believe this wasn't designed)...

Here is the review of the first episode of Cosmos by Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute. The next two episodes have not been much better.

"If there was any doubt that the rebooted Cosmos series...would be politically charged and have a materialistic ideological message, consider what viewers saw in its first 60 seconds. The initial opening featured President Obama, with the Presidential Seal in the background, giving a statement endorsing the new series praising "the spirit of discovery that Carl Sagan captured in the original Cosmos." That's not necessarily bad, except for what happened next. Immediately following President Obama's endorsement, the show replayed Carl Sagan's famous materialistic credo from the opening of the original Cosmos series, stating: "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." Does it violate the separation of church and state for the President of the United States to be portrayed seemingly officially endorsing Sagan's materialistic philosophy? Is this what President Obama intended when he promised in his first inaugural address to "restore science to its rightful place..."

More...

I bought and read "The Explanation for Everything" by Lauren Grodstein a few months ago. I hoped it would be a balanced approach to the debate. I was sorely disappointed.

Now, Kelley J. Unger of Discovery Institute has read the book, and provides a great review: "I've just read a new fiction book that has won praise from critics, Lauren Grodstein's The Explanation for Everything. In the marketing materials provided by Algonquin Books, the author is lauded for not taking sides in the evolution debate. She says herself that she wants to "figure out why people believe what they believe." But as one reads the book it's evident that she is indeed taking sides, doesn't fully develop why her characters believe what they believe, and certainly hasn't fully investigated the theory of intelligent design."

More...

In this post in Uncommon Descent I (Eric Anderson) want to consider a fundamental aspect of intelligent design theory: the concept of "information'.

This is centrally relevant to the intelligent design concept of "complex specified information". Attempts have been made by ID critics to derail ID by critiquing each of these three words: complexity, specification and information. Indeed, it is not uncommon to see long, drawn-out, battles over these terms in an attempt to avoid getting to the central issue of whether design can be detected.

More...

In ENV, Casey Luskin writes that..."Jerry Coyne is playing more games, constantly pretending that we have "admitted" intelligent design is religious when we criticize Ball State University (BSU) for being "anti-religious." In his post, Coyne was responding to a letter I published in the Muncie Star Press explaining the anti-religious nature of the book What's Your Dangerous Idea?."

Much more...

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.

Post by Cubist
Again: Any substantive discussion of the topic at hand would inevitably lead to a topic which Our Gracious Host would prefer that we avoid. I would recommend that you, too, investigate the origins of the Online Pocket O' Misogyny which proudly bears the self-granted name of "slymepit". If you would like to engage in actual discourse on said topic, there is PMs and there is email. And before you conclude that my somewhat elliptical remarks here are born of a lack of respect for evidence, perhaps you might inquire with Our Gracious Host regarding his tolerance for discussion of one particular topic.
Or, you know, not.

Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (socle @ Mar. 22 2014,20:35) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 22 2014,19:24)Integral curve is similar but grid network vectors show more than one possible (violet) path from each X,Y by there usually being more than one active input.



Following one or more attractors in a circular path back to a given point is something happening over time, temporal, not one propagation timestep that at each shows all possible paths (both short and long) to an attractor.  

There is nothing at all wrong with how I explained things.
I see.  Have you investigated other types of mathematical systems which might have some connection to your theory?
Yes, and I came up with what came to mind for you.

The grid cell model is using very simple wave propagation that in turn (and all by itself) produces directional vectors for multiple paths. It's not something I read about and tried, was more like common sense that the grid network model would propagate waves, then after looking at the way the cells were active with each other I noticed they were pointing out the paths that can be taken to reach the transmitting location. I'm not sure whether that has a name, it's not triangulation.

Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Mar. 22 2014,19:46) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 22 2014,15:17)Whatever academic snobbery you want to hurl at me next is your choice. The two or three word quote mining for a semantics argument looks good. But I think most will be able to understand the concept of directional vectors being used to make complex weather maps showing all paths the wind went, at a given moment in time. And it makes little sense for me to argue that there are enough neurons in our brain, after providing info on what is now known about neural grid modules.
Quote mining?  Here's the full text of the post in question:
  Quote And I called it "self-navigation" because with the grid system in Confidence there is no need for a navigational system that decides what to do next then preplans motor movements in the form of motor commands to move it along some path. It it-self already knows where it wants to navigate, and can virtually perceive all the paths that can be taken to get there including long ways it can go.
What did you mean by "virtually"?  If you're using the standard sense of the word, you mean that it can perceive almost all of the paths. If you were using the computer science sense of "virtual" there is a significantly different meaning.
The word "virtual" is to indicate that the entity exists in a computer simulation, as opposed to the real world where it would then have a brain made of living neurons. One uses math and logic, the other molecules and cells, to produce the needed direction vectors. In both cases there is a grid map representative of what the entity perceives at that moment in time for possible paths it can take, where some follow the barrier/wall while others straight at it. Which path it takes to the attractor(s) depends on behavior. Some insects prefer to follow walls for as far as they can go (would choose an outer angular vector for direction), others fly the shortest route (would use average central angle they point towards). Regardless of which possible path is ultimately taken what is being perceived still includes all of them, at the same time, even paths they would not ever follow (but another would).

Post by socle
Here's one that comes to mind:

Post by Glen Davidson
Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 22 2014,20:39) Quote (Patrick @ Mar. 22 2014,14:43)   Quote (Driver @ Mar. 22 2014,14:57)     Quote (Patrick @ Mar. 22 2014,16:57)     Quote (Driver @ Mar. 22 2014,12:16)       Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 22 2014,14:30)       Quote (REC @ Mar. 21 2014,22:19)and the UD Fri night drinking game....

          Quote usually the women thing is to promote women in science as they historically and today lag behind. I don’t think women can compete with men intellectually because of a lack of motivation or rather not as motivated as men. men are made to be accomplished and women were made to help men only as the bible teaches. in science accomplishment this is made obvious as affirmative action can’t hide the ratio.

Drink until you 1) forget asshats like this exist and
2) That all the xtian UDers will call you out on anything that looks like some support of some real science, but never, never this...
Anyone else want to lock this guy in a room with Erv and a buncha medieval weapons?
To see which one hates women the most?
You seem to have ERV confused with the gutless bastard who tried to get her fired for opinions she posted online.
No. Misogyny is not a unique phenomenon.
If you're going to accuse an intelligent, articulate, accomplished woman who is actively working in HIV research of misogyny, you should provide some evidence.  If you can't, you should retract your unsupported insult.
This leads directly into an topic which Our Gracious Host greatly prefers that we avoid, so I will restrict myself to this one remark on the subject: I would recommend that you investigate the origins of the Online Pocket O' Misogyny which proudly bears the self-granted name of "slymepit".
Oh, you can sling unevidenced BS as well as any other fascist propagandist.

Typical SJW lack of concern for evidence.  

Glen Davidson

Post by Cubist
Quote (Patrick @ Mar. 22 2014,14:43) Quote (Driver @ Mar. 22 2014,14:57) Quote (Patrick @ Mar. 22 2014,16:57)   Quote (Driver @ Mar. 22 2014,12:16)   Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 22 2014,14:30)     Quote (REC @ Mar. 21 2014,22:19)and the UD Fri night drinking game....

      Quote usually the women thing is to promote women in science as they historically and today lag behind. I don’t think women can compete with men intellectually because of a lack of motivation or rather not as motivated as men. men are made to be accomplished and women were made to help men only as the bible teaches. in science accomplishment this is made obvious as affirmative action can’t hide the ratio.

Drink until you 1) forget asshats like this exist and
2) That all the xtian UDers will call you out on anything that looks like some support of some real science, but never, never this...
Anyone else want to lock this guy in a room with Erv and a buncha medieval weapons?
To see which one hates women the most?
You seem to have ERV confused with the gutless bastard who tried to get her fired for opinions she posted online.
No. Misogyny is not a unique phenomenon.
If you're going to accuse an intelligent, articulate, accomplished woman who is actively working in HIV research of misogyny, you should provide some evidence.  If you can't, you should retract your unsupported insult.
This gets into an area which Our Gracious Host does not want to have flare up into a flamewar, so I will restrict myself to this one remark on the subject: Perhaps you might want to investigate the origins of the Online Pocket O' Misogyny which proudly bears the self-granted name of "slymepit".

Post by socle
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 22 2014,19:24)Integral curve is similar but grid network vectors show more than one possible (violet) path from each X,Y by there usually being more than one active input.



Following one or more attractors in a circular path back to a given point is something happening over time, temporal, not one propagation timestep that at each shows all possible paths (both short and long) to an attractor.  

There is nothing at all wrong with how I explained things.
I see.  Have you investigated other types of mathematical systems which might have some connection to your theory?

Post by Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 22 2014,15:17)Whatever academic snobbery you want to hurl at me next is your choice. The two or three word quote mining for a semantics argument looks good. But I think most will be able to understand the concept of directional vectors being used to make complex weather maps showing all paths the wind went, at a given moment in time. And it makes little sense for me to argue that there are enough neurons in our brain, after providing info on what is now known about neural grid modules.
Quote mining?  Here's the full text of the post in question:
Quote And I called it "self-navigation" because with the grid system in Confidence there is no need for a navigational system that decides what to do next then preplans motor movements in the form of motor commands to move it along some path. It it-self already knows where it wants to navigate, and can virtually perceive all the paths that can be taken to get there including long ways it can go.
What did you mean by "virtually"?  If you're using the standard sense of the word, you mean that it can perceive almost all of the paths. If you were using the computer science sense of "virtual" there is a significantly different meaning.

*Your* poor writing and English usage causes confusion. In another instance in the same post, you say refer to "...complex weather maps showing all paths the wind went, at a given moment in time."  Did you mean all paths the wind might take, or are you referring to an historical map?  It matters.  If you meant the latter, it has no bearing on the point you're trying to make. Of course, if you meant the former it's a poor analogy.

Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (socle @ Mar. 22 2014,17:34) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 22 2014,15:17)Whatever academic snobbery you want to hurl at me next is your choice. The two or three word quote mining for a semantics argument looks good. But I think most will be able to understand the concept of directional vectors being used to make complex weather maps showing all paths the wind went, at a given moment in time. And it makes little sense for me to argue that there are enough neurons in our brain, after providing info on what is now known about neural grid modules.

It sounds to me like what the Grid Cell Network model demonstrates just toasted your method(s) for eliminating that from your models using lines between points type reasoning, instead of hexagonal grids of angular vectors.
It looks like the "paths" you're talking about are integral curves which are solutions to the differential equation corresponding to the field of "changing flow vectors" *cough*.  

You're not claiming your bug is aware of all possible paths from one point to another, correct?  Cause there's a shedload of them, even on your tiny 16 x 16 grid, even if you assume that paths cannot double back or the like.
Integral curve is similar but grid network vectors show more than one possible (violet) path from each X,Y by there usually being more than one active input.



Following one or more attractors in a circular path back to a given point is something happening over time, temporal, not one propagation timestep that at each shows all possible paths (both short and long) to an attractor.  

There is nothing at all wrong with how I explained things.

Post by socle
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 22 2014,15:17)Whatever academic snobbery you want to hurl at me next is your choice. The two or three word quote mining for a semantics argument looks good. But I think most will be able to understand the concept of directional vectors being used to make complex weather maps showing all paths the wind went, at a given moment in time. And it makes little sense for me to argue that there are enough neurons in our brain, after providing info on what is now known about neural grid modules.

It sounds to me like what the Grid Cell Network model demonstrates just toasted your method(s) for eliminating that from your models using lines between points type reasoning, instead of hexagonal grids of angular vectors.
It looks like the "paths" you're talking about are integral curves which are solutions to the differential equation corresponding to the field of "changing flow vectors" *cough*.  

You're not claiming your bug is aware of all possible paths from one point to another, correct?  Cause there's a shedload of them, even on your tiny 16 x 16 grid, even if you assume that paths cannot double back or the like.