[_ Old Earth _] God Can Count - Can Evolution?

[cupid dave]

Why not give up the unequal battle? Here you are, saying that I am quotemining - it's all you've got, really. But I gave the link to talkorigins, and it's there in full for you to go check.

Have you done so?

If you have, and you still persist with the quotemining accusation, and I have given the whole piece they quoted, then you're accusing talkorigins of quotemining! That's a good example of shooting yourself in the foot.

Do you still stand by your accusation? If so, justify it by finding the whole passage they quoted, and we'll see.

If they are quotemining, then tough luck. It's your side that's guilty. If they're not quotemining, then you have to find a new tack.

Whichever, you're in very deep trouble.



The customary crap.

Do they know enough about it? I doubt it. Not one of them has a critical bone in their heads - other kinds of solid bone maybe - but the brainless swallowing and regurgitating that goes on there is intellectually disgraceful, to say the least.



Did you follow the link I gave? I bet you didn't. You don't dare. Here it is again: go search. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

Then admit you're talking nonsense.



You're in very deep trouble again. I asked you what FORTUITOUS (his word) meant. Maybe you said what it meant, but I don't recall. Here's the dictionary:
for·tu·i·tous/fôrˈt(y)o͞oitəs/


Adjective:

1. Happening by accident or chance rather than design.
2. Happening by a lucky chance; fortunate.

You got that now? Monod says mutations are FORTUITOUS, meaning happening by accident, chance, NOT by design.

And that is IN EXISTING CELLS. He's NOT talking about abiogenesis.

I hope your English is up to this, but I'm beginning to doubt it.



Engineers have brains. Intelligence. Design ability. Can recognise something good when it pops up by chance on their COMPUTER PROGRAMS.

Natural selection has none of these.

So spare us the tripe.



And the number of such is insignificant in the great scheme of things, as you've seen from the rate of mutation we know pretty exactly. And don't forget, your high priest Dawkins said:



So even that insignificant number of insignificant mutations is usually bad.

How can you get the Cambrian explosion from that depressing statistic?


Write to talkorigins about their misuse of Dawkins. They'll set you right. Here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html


You really don't get it, do you?

That's not a lot of variation - because a huge percentage of that fanciful figure of yours is either neutral or damaging. Dawkins said so. Remember him?

they [mutations] are usually bad because there are more ways of getting worse than of getting better.



As I said, talkorigins quoted these people, not me.

But if that's the best you can do, then your case is in an extremely bad way - 'sick unto death' is the Biblical expression.

Call me wrong as Adam shows anyone can do, but explain how you are on Topic here, and how all theabove makes a case for or against God counting, and evolution?


I see God counting twelve tribes, twelve stones for the altar built by Joshua and again, 12nby Elijah, and 12 princes, and 12 sons of Ismael, etc.

I read about seven over and over.

Then we see this hypothesis that suggests the 7 and 12 are number sets in a Group Theory that supposes a pattern to the way we think evolved such that men can image the external Reality which is their master, lord, and almighty.

How is that off Topic and this argument against evolution important to the OP?

 

[Asyncritus]

Call me wrong as Adam shows anyone can do, but explain how you are on Topic here, and how all theabove makes a case for or against God counting, and evolution?


I see God counting twelve tribes, twelve stones for the altar built by Joshua and again, 12nby Elijah, and 12 princes, and 12 sons of Ismael, etc.

I read about seven over and over.

Then we see this hypothesis that suggests the 7 and 12 are number sets in a Group Theory that supposes a pattern to the way we think evolved such that men can image the external Reality which is their master, lord, and almighty.

How is that off Topic and this argument against evolution important to the OP?

The logic of it is this: Evolution is a chance process. It is founded on mutations followed by natural selection.

Neither of those 2 can produce such huge, mathematically exact patterns as shown in the OP, where monocots count in 3's, and dicots count in 4's or 5's.

A mathematically exact, counted out feature cannot have evolved by chance.

SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is looking for designed radio signals from space. For instance, if they receive a signal which contains the prime numbers in ascending order, you know, 1,2,3,5, 7 11 etc, then they will be certain that the signal came from an intelligent source.

Which is pretty sensible really.

Now we have in the plant kingdom and in very many other places, mathematically exact patterns, which are extremely extensive. The two mentioned above hold good throughout the angiosperms, which is about half the plant kingdom.

Therefore, that mathematical exactness demonstrates that this is the work of intelligence, not chance.

Barbarian would have us believe that these patterns are chance occurrences. I think they prove the exact opposite: God has designed them.

To put the matter is SETI terms, here is a message repeated thousands of times in every monocot and dicot species - and there are thousands of them, 3s,4s,5,s everywhere on the habitable planet.

If SETI received so many thousand sets of 3s, 4s and 5s - don't you think they would unhesitatingly think that this was not radio static (like evolution) but an intended message (like from a Creator)?

They would be foolish not to.

 

[Barbarian]

But I gave the link to talkorigins, and it's there in full for you to go check.

Have you done so?

Well, let's go take a look. From the link you posted:

Conclusions of this FAQ
Genetic changes do not anticipate a species' needs, and those changes may be unrelated to selection pressures on the species. Nevertheless, evolution is not fundamentally a random process.

Surprise. Incidentally, I took a look at your professed "high priest" and he doesn't agree with you, either.

It is grindingly, creakingly, obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work.
Richard Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable.

Surprise, again.

If you have, and you still persist with the quotemining accusation, and I have given the whole piece they quoted, then you're accusing talkorigins of quotemining!

See above. They clearly don't say what you claim they did.

That's a good example of shooting yourself in the foot.

I guess we'll be calling you "gimpy" for a while, um?

Do you still stand by your accusation? If so, justify it by finding the whole passage they quoted, and we'll see.

See above. You've hit the wall, yet again.

Barbarian suggests:
Nope. I didn't say that, either. But let's see what they say on that site...

The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions based on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.

Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

Explanations of why these statements are wrong are given below. They are brief and therefore somewhat simplified; consult the references at the end for more thorough explanations.

And again, T.O. doesn't say what you claim they said. This isn't going well for you at all, is it?

The customary crap.

Did you follow the link I gave? I bet you didn't. You don't dare.

Yep. See above.

Here it is again: go search. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

And it says...
Conclusions of this FAQ
Genetic changes do not anticipate a species' needs, and those changes may be unrelated to selection pressures on the species. Nevertheless, evolution is not fundamentally a random process.

Exactly the opposite of what you claim they said.

If, as I said, and Monod agrees with me, mutations are chance occurrences, FORTUITOUS is his word, then you certainly do not have a process with any direction in it.

Barbarian chuckles:
If there wasn't natural selection, you'd be right. But you're wrong. A random process, plus a non-random process is a non-random process.

Barbarian observes:
You're wrong about that, too. Engineers are now finding that highly complex things like optimized diesel engines are easier to get by random mutation and natural selection than by design. Of course, God already knew that, um?

Engineers have brains. Intelligence. Design ability. Can recognise something good when it pops up by chance on their COMPUTER PROGRAMS.

Nope. Just natural selection. That's how it works. Learn about it here:

What Is the Genetic Algorithm?

The genetic algorithm is a method for solving both constrained and unconstrained optimization problems that is based on natural selection, the process that drives biological evolution. The genetic algorithm repeatedly modifies a population of individual solutions. At each step, the genetic algorithm selects individuals at random from the current population to be parents and uses them to produce the children for the next generation. Over successive generations, the population "evolves" toward an optimal solution. You can apply the genetic algorithm to solve a variety of optimization problems that are not well suited for standard optimization algorithms, including problems in which the objective function is discontinuous, nondifferentiable, stochastic, or highly nonlinear. The genetic algorithm can address problems of mixed integer programming, where some components are restricted to be integer-valued.

The genetic algorithm uses three main types of rules at each step to create the next generation from the current population:

Selection rules select the individuals, called parents, that contribute to the population at the next generation.

Crossover rules combine two parents to form children for the next generation.

Mutation rules apply random changes to individual parents to form children.
http://www.mathworks.com/help/toolbox/gads/f6636.html

Natural selection has none of these.

God seems like He's intelligent. At least it seems to me.

And don't forget, your high priest Dawkins said:
It is grindingly, creakingly, obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work.
Richard Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable.

Barbarian observes:
Haven't read much Dawkins, and given your history, I doubt if you honestly quoted him. Find some facts.

Write to talkorigins about their misuse of Dawkins. They'll set you right.

That's where I found the Dawkins quote. He says exactly the opposite of what you claim he said.

(Regarding the argument that there wouldn't be enough mutations)
As you learned, every individual has many mutations. The Cambrian would have had perhaps a dozen to a hundred per individual organism, over many millions of years. That's a huge amount of variation, well able to account for the changes. If you don't think so, I'm sure everyone would be happy to see your math.

You really don't get it, do you? That's not a lot of variation - because a huge percentage of that fanciful figure of yours is either neutral or damaging. Dawkins said so. Remember him?

Well, let's suppose that only one in a thousand is useful. Let's make it one in a million. Let's say that Cambrian organisms had only half as many mutations as humans have today. So, 30 mutations per organism, for a population of only a million, with a generation time of say 100 years, we'd see about 19.5 trillion useful mutations over the Cambrian.

That's a lot of good stuff.

Barbarian, looking at the Talk.origins material:
Are you beginning to see why quote-mining makes you so easy to handle?

As I said, talkorigins quoted these people, not me.

Turns out they didn't say what you claim they did. In fact, they said the opposite.

If that's the best you can do, then your case is in an extremely bad way - 'sick unto death' is the Biblical expression.

 

[Barbarian]

The logic of it is this: Evolution is a chance process. It is founded on mutations followed by natural selection.

As you learned, natural selection is the antithesis of chance.

A mathematically exact, counted out feature cannot have evolved by chance.

But it does evolve by random mutation and natural selection.

SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is looking for designed radio signals from space. For instance, if they receive a signal which contains the prime numbers in ascending order, you know, 1,2,3,5, 7 11 etc, then they will be certain that the signal came from an intelligent source.

Which is pretty sensible really.

Now we have in the plant kingdom and in very many other places, mathematically exact patterns, which are extremely extensive. The two mentioned above hold good throughout the angiosperms, which is about half the plant kingdom.

Therefore, that mathematical exactness demonstrates that this is the work of intelligence, not chance.

In the sense that God created a word in which such things evolve naturally.

Nucleotide Frequencies in Human Genome and Fibonacci Numbers
Michel E. Beleza Yamagishi and Alex Itiro Shimabukuro
This work presents a mathematical model that establishes an interesting connection between nucleotide frequencies in human single-stranded DNA and the famous Fibonacci’s numbers. The model relies on two assumptions. First, Chargaff’s second parity rule should be valid, and second, the nucleotide frequencies should approach limit values when the number of bases is sufficiently large. Under these two hypotheses, it is possible to predict the human nucleotide frequencies with accuracy. This result may be used as evidence to the Fibonacci string model that was proposed to the sequence growth of DNA repetitive sequences. It is noteworthy that the predicted values are solutions of an optimization problem, which is commonplace in many of nature’s phenomena.
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
Volume 70, Number 3 (2008), 643-653

God is a lot smarter than creationists would like Him to be. Mathematics is itimately tied into the very structure of nature, which produces these wonders as He intended.

Barbarian would have us believe that these patterns are chance occurrences.

It's always sad to hear someone who professes to be a Christian blatantly lie like that. Of course, I never said that. When Async gets angry, he loses all sense of caution and ethics, and blurts out whatever soothes his rage at the moment.

 

[Asyncritus]

The sheer idiocy of the theory of evolution beggars description.

Consider:

1 A random process can produce strict, heritable, mathematically exact structure.

2 Of course, in evolution theory, random, chance, fortuitous, don't mean what they mean in English.

3 Dawkins admits that the production of mutations is random, by chance. Barbarian says: No. He doesn't say that. Now either Dawkins is a fool and doesn't know any English either, or Barbarian doesn't.

I went to the trouble of visiting that hotbed of evolutionary nonsense, talkorigins, and founed them saying that Monod said:

that these mutations IN LIVING ORGANISMS - proving Barbarian lied when he said this was to do with abiogenesis (you owe me an apology for that one) occurred FORTUITOUSLY.

The dictionary said:

for·tu·i·tous/fôrˈt(y)o͞oitəs/

Adjective:

1. Happening by accident or chance rather than design.
2. Happening by a lucky chance; fortunate.

But no, fortuitous doesn't mean fortuitous, says Barbarian. It is the very ANTITHESIS of chance.

Well, readers, you can choose. Do you believe Barbarian, or the dictionary? I choose the dictionary any day.

Now here's further proof that I'm right. Barbarian says, or quotes the following:

To make sense of nonsense, we need heavy mathematics. So he finds this genetic algorithm. What is an algorithm? A random process, generated by chance? Or the product of intelligence and mathematical knowledge?

Wiki:

'In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm i/ˈælɡərɪðəm/ (originating from al-Khwārizmī, the famous Persian mathematician Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī) is a step-by-step procedure for calculations. Algorithms are used for calculation, data processing, and automated reasoning.
More precisely, an algorithm is an effective method expressed as a finite list[1] of well-defined instructions[2] for calculating a function'

Do you, dear reader, see anything remotely like 'chance' in there? Does it not take intelligence of the highest degree to invent first, and utilise second, such a severely mathematical process?

Yet, this is what they have to invoke, in order to salvage this rubbish theory.

As Dawkins said, it is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that if evolution is a chance process, it wouldn't work. He is right - but then proceeds to demonstrate just how much special pleading and invocation of question begging he has to do in order to prevent the demolition men from moving in.

Barbarian next demonstrates his fine qualities as a begger of questions. I am stating that evolution, a chance process, based entirely on the random, fortuitous occurrence of mutations is completely incapable of producing the highly intelligent structures and processes we see everywhere in nature today.

He ducks the question, and highly inconsistently say this in response to my point about SETI:

Now we have in the plant kingdom and in very many other places, mathematically exact patterns, which are extremely extensive. The two mentioned above hold good throughout the angiosperms, which is about half the plant kingdom.

Therefore, that mathematical exactness demonstrates that this is the work of intelligence, not chance.




In the sense that God created a word in which such things evolve naturally.

He wants to have his cake and eat it. God did it. Chance did it. Evolution did it.

He is completely unable and inwilling to see that these are completely contradictory things. As Jesus says, you can't serve two masters.

In this case you expose yourself completely to ridicule. Dawkins can see this, and mocks the theistic evolutionists, who fail to see the self contradictory element in their position.

I support him entirely in this.

You cannot serve God and mammon.

 

[Adam]

Asyncritis,

Can you describe Choas Theory for me?

Particularly, can you explain how a body of water has predictible attributes, yet the individual molecules constantly break and remake their covalent bonds in a pattern that is completely unpredictible?

How far into the future can you predict the weather?

 

[Barbarian]

The sheer idiocy of the theory of evolution beggars description.

Consider:

1 A random process can produce strict, heritable, mathematically exact structure.

Wrong. It says that random mutation, acted upon by natural selection, can lead to greater fitness in a population.

2 Of course, in evolution theory, random, chance, fortuitous, don't mean what they mean in English.

They are used in a stricter sense, most of them, but as you learned, natural selection is not random.

3 Dawkins admits that the production of mutations is random, by chance.

Barbarian says: Yes random mutations are randomly distributed, and without natural selection, would never have produced much of anything.

Async is in another of his hissy fits, and he's lying about what Barbarian said.

I went to the trouble of visiting that hotbed of evolutionary nonsense, talkorigins, and founed them saying that Monod said:

that these mutations IN LIVING ORGANISMS - proving Barbarian lied when he said this was to do with abiogenesis (you owe me an apology for that one) occurred FORTUITOUSLY.

As you know, I told you that a random process, like mutation, with a non-random process, like natural selection produces a non-random result.

Shame on you for pretending otherwise.

'In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm i/ˈælɡərɪðəm/ (originating from al-Khwārizmī, the famous Persian mathematician Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī) is a step-by-step procedure for calculations. Algorithms are used for calculation, data processing, and automated reasoning.
More precisely, an algorithm is an effective method expressed as a finite list[1] of well-defined instructions[2] for calculating a function'

Do you, dear reader, see anything remotely like 'chance' in there? Does it not take intelligence of the highest degree to invent first, and utilise second, such a severely mathematical process?

If you ever did any programming, you'd know that many, many scientific and technical algorithms include random number generators.

But let's take a look at genetic algorithms...

In a genetic algorithm, a population of strings (called chromosomes or the genotype of the genome), which encode candidate solutions (called individuals, creatures, or phenotypes) to an optimization problem, evolves toward better solutions. Traditionally, solutions are represented in binary as strings of 0s and 1s, but other encodings are also possible. The evolution usually starts from a population of randomly generated individuals and happens in generations. In each generation, the fitness of every individual in the population is evaluated, multiple individuals are stochastically selected from the current population (based on their fitness), and modified (recombined and possibly randomly mutated) to form a new population. The new population is then used in the next iteration of the algorithm. Commonly, the algorithm terminates when either a maximum number of generations has been produced, or a satisfactory fitness level has been reached for the population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

Yet, this is what they have to invoke, in order to salvage this rubbish theory.

Surprise.

As Dawkins said, it is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that if evolution is a chance process, it wouldn't work.

Yep. The opposite of what you claim he said.

Barbarian next demonstrates his fine qualities as a begger of questions. I am stating that evolution, a chance process, based entirely on the random, fortuitous occurrence of mutations is completely incapable of producing the highly intelligent structures and processes we see everywhere in nature today.

If it were only random mutations, you'd be right. But natural selection is the antithesis of randomness. But you already knew that.

Barbarian observes:
In the sense that God created a word in which such things evolve naturally.

God did it.

Yep. You just don't approve of the way He did it.

You cannot serve God and creationism.

 

[Barbarian]

Async has no idea of the order in chaos. In grad school, I ran into that very early, while trying to make some sense of the Lotke-Volterra equations.

Later on, Feigenbaum sorted it out:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FeigenbaumConstant.html

 

[Adam]

In all fairness, I think he has it in him to grasp the concept.

If he can, then there should be no trouble in translating it over to understand the "random" characteristics that appear in evolution.

I trust he is a very bright individual and his problems with rationalization simply come from bad data. He is just looking at it wrong.

 

[cupid dave]

The logic of it is this: Evolution is a chance process. It is founded on mutations followed by natural selection.

Neither of those 2 can produce such huge, mathematically exact patterns as shown in the OP, where monocots count in 3's, and dicots count in 4's or 5's.

A mathematically exact, counted out feature cannot have evolved by chance.
.

The mathematics that our mind has evolved to recognize symboically in numbers used in a relationship with one another in accord to rigorous rules came about because that number pattern is inherent in the ramdonness best expressed by the Fibonacci Sequence and because alllife is a function of cell divisions that multiple in accord to that same sequence:


What I can show to the patient and opened mind person is the basis for cellular formations in our brain which organize themselves due to the mitosis involved in their growth and devlopment of our thinking apparatus.

This Fibanacci order of arrangement of the neurons connects them in a way which sets up and inherent contains the binary number system used in computers today.
As we now can see, those computers can essentially see, hear, taste, etc just as can we, but instead of neurons, we use transistors.

Given enough positive reinforcement and interes,t the case can be made (a little at a time) in this medium to show how it all works:

 

[Adam]

The mathematics that our mind has evolved to recognize symboically in numbers used in a relationship with one another in accord to rigorous rules came about because that number pattern is inherent in the ramdonness best expressed by the Fibonacci Sequence and because alllife is a function of cell divisions that multiple in accord to that same sequence:


What I can show to the patient and opened mind person is the basis for cellular formations in our brain which organize themselves due to the mitosis involved in their growth and devlopment of our thinking apparatus.

This Fibanacci order of arrangement of the neurons connects them in a way which sets up and inherent contains the binary number system used in computers today.
As we now can see, those computers can essentially see, hear, taste, etc just as can we, but instead of neurons, we use transistors.

Given enough positive reinforcement and interes,t the case can be made (a little at a time) in this medium to show how it all works:

So wrong in so many ways.

 

[cupid dave]

So wrong in so many ways.

Oh, sure,... its just a hypothesis.

What we do know is that the external world becomes mathematically knowable to us in a way that is analogous to what we have the computers do by using the rules of Boolian Algebra to manipulate transistors with either a positive or negative potential, i.e.; 0, 1.

The brain has neurons which chearge and discharge much the same way in their networks.

My point is that due to the natural process of mitosis, those nerves are aranged in a Fivonacci order that inherently contains the Pascal Triangular arrangements that produce Base 2 rows of nerve cells that essentially have evolved into fixed programs, especially those programs of the senses:

 

[Adam]

Cupid Dave,

I'm sorry, but those claims you have made are absolutely wrong.


Saying that neurons function as transistors is a very primitive understanding of the neuron. Neurons are more suited to be considered computers, which communicate via a network. Neurons react to processes, not static events and while we have recently tried to build transistors to mimick the behavior of neurons, the "boolean" model used to acheive somewhat similar behaviors that we see in neurons is artificial and used in AI applications, not in actual neuroscience.

Neither are neurons "linked through mitosis." Furthermore, the network that neurons operate in is not a Fibonacci sequence. That assumes, as you have stated, that the neural network is fixed. It is not.

The claim of Fibonacci sequences conflates and confuses the distinction between cell development and cell function. The function of neurons has no relevance to the Fibonacci sequence, given that mitosis in neural cells has nothing to do with how they are connceted or communicate.

The network utilizes parallel processing and the patterns derived are dynamic, changing with changes in behavior. Neurons also encode both digital and analog information.

As I have said, the connectionism that you imply about the framework of network functions is a model on how to mimick neural network behaviors in AI applications, but is negligent to the fact that computational neuroscience encompasses much more complex concepts in subjects such as single neuron modeling, axonal patterning, sensory processing, memory and synaptic plasticity, network behaviors, cognition, discrimination and learning, and consciousness.

The depth of this subject cannot be reduced to "neurons are transistors" while still maintaining any integrity, information or useful meaning. Perhaps it may be a useful tool to introduce the subject to children, but discussing it as such among adults undermines our understanding of what is really going on.

 

[cupid dave]

Cupid Dave,

I'm sorry, but those claims you have made are absolutely wrong.

Neither are neurons "linked through mitosis."

Furthermore, the network that neurons operate in is not a Fibonacci sequence.

That assumes, as you have stated, that the neural network is fixed. It is not.
.

There is no need to be sorry.



Many people have preconceived reservations about these ideas that prompt them to make statements that are immaterial, or worse, dead wrong.
Usually they tend to jump the gun, run off at the mouth, and stack up criticism devoid of a real analysis of what was actually said, but appeal to a general increduity of the new idea (which they never had entertained before themselves).
Hence I caution you to use patience.




What we call moisis or mitiosis is simply the splitting of a neuron or nerve cell.

This happens very much in the same way as Fibonacci conceived of the rabbits he envisioned in order to show mathematically how the famous sequence is a natural consequence of this division process.

(People here, perhaps your self included, who do not understand exactly the reasoning Fibonaccci used should google for more enlightenment on that.
He used rabbit multiplying and I used neuron cells))




Basiclly, what happens is explained in the legends of the charts I posted back a few frames here.

What happens is that the neurons create two relationships with each other.
One is the connections which link nerve cells in groups that form the same numerical relationship as found in Pascal's Pyramid.
That relationship is a consequence of the first, this doubling and splitting of the nerve cell to form generations of cells in accord with the sequence itself.





Yes, yes, I do "assume that the neural network is fixed."
This is the kind of silly unwarranted criticism that I referred to above.
We just do not really yet know how these nerve groups are related.
This is the basis of the hypothesis stated here.


Evidence for this "fixed neural network" can be seen in Hearing, where music is expressed in frequencies to which these binary rows of neurons will respond.

 

[cupid dave]

What Guilford thought is immaterial because he has been dismissed as a quack by modern psychologists as well as his contemporaries, not because he is dead..

Guilford is material to this extension of his idea about the geometric analogy of a cube shaped model that is possible when we theorize about how our intellect works.

Especially in psychology, the next wave of students tend to reject the foundations of men like Jung and Freud, for example, and would like the personal satisfaction, credit, and glory of proposing a totally different idea, one that has been seen to die with them in most all cases.

They have done no better by tearing down then these great men on whose shoulder we ought stand and build.

What I see inherent in the scientific cubic geometry of Guilford's model for intellect is its connection with another Cube Model, one also subtly suggested for the Bible's Urim and Thummim.



Interesting, that Guilford the scientist would propose such a cubic geometric model in order to attempt to show how "counting" has evolved, and that the bible writers would support him with this cubic model called the Urim and Thummim, also a device by which to divine the word of God.

Does this suggest that God counts out and man has evolved a mechanism to count up?

Does scripture actually refer to the follish erroneous wisdom used by the Egyptians and their pyramids when scripture mocks that they forgot the center "stone" of the cube which is the fifth missing piece needed to transform a pyramid into a cube?


Again and again, the numers in the bible infer this relationship to the faces of this five part cube, which has room for the 7 patriarchs on those seven triangular spaces inside, and room for the twelve tribes around the cube itself.
Coincidence or hint, hint, hint...?

My friends, the builders built the temple wrong.
Over all the land the Jews sang this song.
Yahweh's Temple, a pyramid is not,
But a cubic shaped box it ought adopt.
Is 19:19

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/the_urim_and_thummim/

Both are related to the same idea, i.e.; explaining the mechanism by which men divine what is True about the creation we live inside.

By knowing the creation, the creator is revealed.

 

[Adam]

There is no need to be sorry.



Many people have preconceived reservations about these ideas that prompt them to make statements that are immaterial, or worse, dead wrong.
Usually they tend to jump the gun, run off at the mouth, and stack up criticism devoid of a real analysis of what was actually said, but appeal to a general increduity of the new idea (which they never had entertained before themselves).
Hence I caution you to use patience.




What we call moisis or mitiosis is simply the splitting of a neuron or nerve cell.

This happens very much in the same way as Fibonacci conceived of the rabbits he envisioned in order to show mathematically how the famous sequence is a natural consequence of this division process.

(People here, perhaps your self included, who do not understand exactly the reasoning Fibonaccci used should google for more enlightenment on that.
He used rabbit multiplying and I used neuron cells))




Basiclly, what happens is explained in the legends of the charts I posted back a few frames here.

What happens is that the neurons create two relationships with each other.
One is the connections which link nerve cells in groups that form the same numerical relationship as found in Pascal's Pyramid.
That relationship is a consequence of the first, this doubling and splitting of the nerve cell to form generations of cells in accord with the sequence itself.





Yes, yes, I do "assume that the neural network is fixed."
This is the kind of silly unwarranted criticism that I referred to above.
We just do not really yet know how these nerve groups are related.
This is the basis of the hypothesis stated here.


Evidence for this "fixed neural network" can be seen in Hearing, where music is expressed in frequencies to which these binary rows of neurons will respond.

I know what mitosis is as well as how it relates to the Fibonacci sequence.

When cells go through mitosis, they do not form relationships with each other. The cell splits and becomes 2 cells. The original cell no longer exists. There is no binary relationship.

Hearing begins with mechanoelectrical transduction stimulating hair cells. There are 2 kinds of hair cells. Yet you claim that all the neurons in the brain are the result of one neuron splitting over and over. You don't realize that there are many kinds of neurons.

There is not a fixed neural network.

 

[Adam]

Guilford is material to this extension of his idea about the geometric analogy of a cube shaped model that is possible when we theorize about how our intellect works.

Especially in psychology, the next wave of students tend to reject the foundations of men like Jung and Freud, for example, and would like the personal satisfaction, credit, and glory of proposing a totally different idea, one that has been seen to die with them in most all cases.

.

That is called a strawman. You cannot paint the rejection of Guilford as a rejection of all psychology.Although Guilford's approach was mentioned often in textbooks until CHC theory really took hold, it was hardly elaborated by anyone but Guilford himself.

I won't address the rest of your post because it is nonsensical, but as far as Guilford is considered by other people in his discipline:

Guilford's model "proved to be an unconvincing and short-lived challenge--one might say pseudo-challange--to g theory"

-Jenson

"Some researchers (e.g., Kelderman, Mellengbergh, & Eshout, 1981) have found partial support for certain aspects of Guilford's model, but on the whole the psychometric community has regarded the model as at least highly questionable, if not entirely rejected....At this point I will only state my conviction that the model is fundamentally defective.

Guilford's SOI model must, therefore, be marked down as a somewhat eccentric aberration in the history of intelligence models; that so much attention has been paid to it is disturbing, to the extent that textbooks and other treatments of it have given the impression that the model is valid and widely accepted, when clearly it is not."

-Carrol

Carroll also had reanalysed much of Guilford's data, finding no support for the SOI model and cites strong criticisms of Guilford from a number of prominent psychometricians.



"The largest number of factors is the 120 proposed by Guilford (1967) and later expanded to 150 (Guilford, 1982). For Guilford, each 'factor' is defined by the execution of a particular kind of operation on a particular kind of product with a particular kind of content. [...] Although Guilford has claimed to be able to devise independent tests of most of these independent factors, his account has not commanded wide assent. The most devastating critique was provided by Horn and Knapp (1973), who showed that Guilford's factorial procedures, when applied to his test data, provided just as strong support for randomly generated factorial theories as they did for Guilford's own theory. Brody (1992) and Carroll (1993) provide more detailed, but not much more sympathetic, accounts of Guilford's theory."

-Mackintosh


Carroll, Jensen, Horn, and others have also taken Guilford to task for using a technique known as targeted orthogonal rotation, where factors are defined before the data are analysed. Guilford assumed a priori that the SOI model is correct, and analysed data from that perspective. Much in the same way that you do, you make you conclusion first and then find data to match, ignoring anything that does not fit into your model.

There is no reason to think that Jensen, Carroll, Mackintosh, Brody and others are not correct when they say that the SOI model has little support among experts, but if you have some recent source that suggests otherwise, please cite it.

 

[cupid dave]

That is called a strawman. You cannot paint the rejection of Guilford as a rejection of all psychology.Although Guilford's approach was mentioned often in textbooks until CHC theory really took hold, it was hardly elaborated by anyone but Guilford himself.

I won't address the rest of your post because it is nonsensical, but as far as Guilford is considered by other people in his discipline:

Guilford's model "proved to be an unconvincing and short-lived challenge--one might say pseudo-challange--to g theory"

-Jenson

"Some researchers (e.g., Kelderman, Mellengbergh, & Eshout, 1981) have found partial support for certain aspects of Guilford's model, but on the whole the psychometric community has regarded the model as at least highly questionable, if not entirely rejected....At this point I will only state my conviction that the model is fundamentally defective.

Guilford's SOI model must, therefore, be marked down as a somewhat eccentric aberration in the history of intelligence models; that so much attention has been paid to it is disturbing, to the extent that textbooks and other treatments of it have given the impression that the model is valid and widely accepted, when clearly it is not."

-Carrol

Carroll also had reanalysed much of Guilford's data, finding no support for the SOI model and cites strong criticisms of Guilford from a number of prominent psychometricians.



"The largest number of factors is the 120 proposed by Guilford (1967) and later expanded to 150 (Guilford, 1982). For Guilford, each 'factor' is defined by the execution of a particular kind of operation on a particular kind of product with a particular kind of content. [...] Although Guilford has claimed to be able to devise independent tests of most of these independent factors, his account has not commanded wide assent. The most devastating critique was provided by Horn and Knapp (1973), who showed that Guilford's factorial procedures, when applied to his test data, provided just as strong support for randomly generated factorial theories as they did for Guilford's own theory. Brody (1992) and Carroll (1993) provide more detailed, but not much more sympathetic, accounts of Guilford's theory."

-Mackintosh


Carroll, Jensen, Horn, and others have also taken Guilford to task for using a technique known as targeted orthogonal rotation, where factors are defined before the data are analysed. Guilford assumed a priori that the SOI model is correct, and analysed data from that perspective. Much in the same way that you do, you make you conclusion first and then find data to match, ignoring anything that does not fit into your model.

There is no reason to think that Jensen, Carroll, Mackintosh, Brody and others are not correct when they say that the SOI model has little support among experts, but if you have some recent source that suggests otherwise, please cite it.

Oh for sure,...

The same thing happens in every new scientific insight.
The first guys, at the frontier, merely open the door to the insight.

When the critics and established scientific community gets done doing the nay-saying motivated by jealousy and arrogance other men start extending the research and gradually refining the ideas until the Theory becomes estabkished.

They act as do you, here.

An example of what I say was John Dalton, who actually was wrong if we take him literally at his every word about the Atom.

Dalton had said that Atoms are solid tiny ball like entities.
Of course, they sort of are, just others have shown that they contain seven prime orbits where electrons spin around a very small nucleus.

Then there was Wegener who said that once all the continents were surrounded by only one giant Ocean, and they ridiculed and laughed at him to the point that his reputation was hurt until he developed much more science revaeling the tectonic plates and their movements.

Of course Guilford was wrong except for the fact that the Logical/Mathematical mind can be modeled as a cube, which is the important part of associating that idea withthe Urim and Thummim.

The Urim and Thummim has evolved inside our head as The Mind.
It is with that Mind that man can image the Almighty Reality, or "see" how God counts, i.e.; see OP.

 

[cupid dave]

I know what mitosis is as well as how it relates to the Fibonacci sequence.

When cells go through mitosis, they do not form relationships with each other. The cell splits and becomes 2 cells. The original cell no longer exists. There is no binary relationship.

Hearing begins with mechanoelectrical transduction stimulating hair cells. There are 2 kinds of hair cells. Yet you claim that all the neurons in the brain are the result of one neuron splitting over and over. You don't realize that there are many kinds of neurons.

There is not a fixed neural network.

Of course, silly....

I am referring to those interneural cells that do associate with one another;

Interneurons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Neuron: Interneuron
A spinal interneuron (relay neuron) forms part of a reflex arcLocationNervous systemNeuroLex IDbirnlex_2534CodeTH H2.00.06.1.00058

• v
• t
• e

An interneuron (also called relay neuron, association neuron, connector neuron or local circuit neuron) is a neuron that forms a connection between other neurons. Interneurons are neither motor nor sensory.

 

[Adam]

Of course Guilford was wrong except for the fact that the Logical/Mathematical mind can be modeled as a cube, which is the important part of associating that idea withthe Urim and Thummim.

The Urim and Thummim has evolved inside our head as The Mind.
It is with that Mind that man can image the Almighty Reality, or "see" how God counts, i.e.; see OP.

I stand by the evidence that what Guilford thought is immaterial and I really don't care about what you imagine the Urim and Thummim to be.