Gary Gaulin

The computer model and theory was already published online! It might not be Nature or PNAS (yet) and the word "Occam's" was somehow scrambled but the phrase "intelligent cause" is still in the description so it looks good enough to me! http://www.planet-so...=74175&lngWId=1 Since those who download it from there already have a compiler there is no executable program. But the theory has a link in it for those who do not have Visual Basic, so all who read the Theory of Intelligent Design that comes with the download will be able to find the version that includes it. Thank you so much for your help teasing out a proper way to start it off. It ended up reading: I added a short disclaimer at the top to separate it from what bombed in Dover, but otherwise it reads as though the ID controversy is already over.

Here's what I have, so far, for an abstract: I started by copying all the sentences you said to where I was typing it in, so I could keep going back up to it while wondering what it next needed. I could from here go into finer detail, but that's how it looks when I focus on the most important to mention. It helped. Being for the theory, I'm again writing as though the controversy is already over. Is not addressing philosophy on the other side of the science out of bounds line, strategy is to only explain how "intelligent cause" works. In an abstract I need to briefly explain what the theory is and how it works in science, and think that does a good job of summing up the scientific purpose. Thought of it as what to say in a science journal abstract that keeps it K-12 simple so that it will work in science classrooms to briefly explain what they are going to learn. Since I was not worn-out from a writing marathon, the grammar should be good. My last reply to your questions was after having been working on it soon after you posted, between other things I had to get done where I thought about how best to answer. Was worn out but seemed good enough, else would have had a much longer wait for it, and an abstract. It seems to well enough show that I'm not talking religion that I can do without the disclaimer paragraph addressing the debate. With that part not being written as though the controversy is already over, it's out of place, but did explain what needed to be defeated before the theory begins. Is instead using how it looks in science to address that. And the better it can answer your questions, the more powerful it will be against it, so if you find anything not yet covered that should be there then please let me know I'll love to try including it.

From what I saw that you wrote in other threads I know that you none the less have the right stuff, for this, just the same. The foundation of this theory was around before the intelligent design debate began. In the early 1990's I had the levels of emergent progression of molecular, cellular and multicellular intelligence all figured but not much for models or how the mechanism that makes it work so well reduced down to four requirements. Theory and its model all along slowly improved to become what you now see. The ID controversy came later to seriously complicate things for me. But later, the hoopla over that Discovery Institute brand theory had a way of giving new life to what I was working on. It might also help to mention that I am a graduate of the Connecticut School of Broadcasting. That academic experience is in part from in my younger days that had the Federal Communications Commission where were lived at the time, just before I officially became a science "radio pirate" for a real nice but miniscule power FM broadcast transmitter. Had unusually high quality sound in comparison to the still phonograph record only stations on the air. My wife and I had an AI radio DJ with one of the first text to speech generators. Could barely understand it, but most never heard a computer talk before so along with it introducing songs and everything it was a sounds impossible sort of thing that made a tiny broadcast range in comparison to the broadcast industry worthwhile. I was not competing with them as one might stereotype this did more to make radio more fun with something to try pulling in while driving through where the signal went. Here's the hoopla on that mess I found myself in when two years into the experiment things went completely out of control: http://widontknow.blogspot.com/ The way it worked out I went where popular radio people taught classes so was myself no longer stranger to the radio industry, then it was like all of the broadcast stations wished they could have some of that radio pirate power. Some made believe they were being pirated to boost ratings. I wrote from the trenches of science ideas and news from the radio science quest type message to radio people through the newest communication gadget the fax machine to a radio station linked to Seattle Grunge scene and other places. A most repeated radio motto here now where I live is 99.3 "Shaping the future, while respecting the past". I don't think I could beat their summation of how it goes when you come as you are, as an old enemy, and not what you got it's what you give others to work from, who most need it. The theory benefited from the debate but was not from it, started with a radio science experiment that went haywire that lead to the theory forming in what was left after that. Then the intelligent design controversy slowly brought it back again then it got caught up in the new momentum of the real-science of something else still around, from the Pirate Radio USA days that brought Pearl Jam even Collective Soul and other now staples of culture. It's for the most part still a real culture war and this is the Theory of Intelligent Design, so must be very careful with its tendency to erupt into chaos, at any time. Is good to keep communications open with the debate so there are no mixed signals from things being sprung on everyone. And you know how WIDon'tKnow went. What can happen right? It seems you are mostly indicating that it should start it off with an abstract. With this writing for documentation for the computer model and already more than someone would expect in a source code download I did not plan on adding one. But I could. Seems like the right place for all you mentioned, and maybe another way to get it started off on the right. I'll use what you said along with what I learned from how to write a science paper websites to write an abstract. We can go from there. I work hard to keep philosophy out the theory or get into SETI or usual watchmaker type arguments others used that were for the most part used as evidence that a theory like this is possible not something to help explain how this intelligent cause mechanism works. I also write the text while considering what happens after the intelligent design controversy is long over, is just more homework one learns in the US public school science classrooms where few might even know it was once controversial. Would then seem silly that it even was. Thanks for the encouraging enough opinion! I know it's something Nature, PNAS and others would want, but of course that's just me saying that. True. The way I see it, science only explains how the mechanism of a process works. Theory has to stop where the out of bounds of science line is. All who like exploring the other side of the line are welcomed, to take it from there. That's a good idea too, for the abstract. Can right now add that it operationally defines "intelligence" and "intelligent cause" with an Intelligence Design Lab model that demonstrates "protointelligence" and now by clicking out the Red Green Blue systems it is missing confidence and memory to be nonintelligence that only expresses a Brownian motion type behavior. Don't have just ambiguous dictionary definitions to try operationally defining intelligence from. I'm also familiar with the problem of modeling intelligent systems like that, from biology on up. In fact, that's why the theory has a simple RAM memory circuit modeled digitally with very simple algorithm and that's it. Works for all 3 levels of intelligence including molecular that made the cell, and past that point in detail it gets complicated real fast, including by what is not yet known yet and other things. It's then not as easy as it sounded at first. Thankfully here the theory only needs the most Occam's Razor simple representation of the whole system at all levels of emergence of intelligence, not neuron by neuron or molecule by molecule detail. I'll try to get an informative abstract together. Thanks for the interesting possibility!

To better explain the goals I put together this linking to some of the projects and what's up, in other ways: http://gaulintracksite.blogspot.com/ http://selflearningbots.blogspot.com/ http://originoflifea...m.blogspot.com/ http://hydrocarbonchains.blogspot.com/ http://reversekrebscycle.blogspot.com/ http://www.planetsou...=71381&lngWId=1 http://selflearningv...m.blogspot.com/ http://origin-of-lif...s.blogspot.com/ http://www.lessonpla...xperiment68.htm http://www.nsta.org/...tst07_074_07_72 For a one-page on who Kathy is and the public hearing that all went to hell, is this from PBS educational TV: http://www.pbs.org/w...k826/cover.html The National Science Teachers Association above has to credit Kathy here http://www.kcfs.org/...c.php?f=1&t=758 Instead of "creationists" all being squashed in Kansas with Kathy the first place Ben Stein would be sent to interview a victim of science, she's photocopying the self-assembly demonstration that came from the noisy hearing, for the science teachers in her network who probably passed that along real fast. Then it went places that most scientists can only dream of and since she is an elementary level science teacher a simple little classroom addition (that did not evolve by process on RM & NS) like that is what her area of science experiments with, so they're golden with something simple like this too: http://www.encyclope...-169596160.html http://www.britannic...e-Cell-Membrane There is now a Theory of Intelligent Design on the way, with Francisco J. Ayala and Mario Coluzzi looking good for explaining chromosome speciation in a way that has Adam and Eve back in the science arena. Might not be what all imagined they would look like exactly, but some even on YouTube were successfully following the scientific evidence where it leads. The theory helps get further into science from there, along the science trail that starts in religion and through self-assembly and other things none knew in the hearing days. Keeps on going all the way to what qualifies as our creator, more formally known as our Creator. Theory goes into the subatomic at one end and very big universe on the other, keeps the search going in both directions at a time for generations to come. The way all view the scriptures changes, but the part that keeps a mystery that some find important enough to sacrifice to preserve just keeps on going. At the very least, the legend of Jesus includes evidence that he was ahead of even the elite of his day in chemistry. A scientist has to at least love them for that. And Prophet Muhammad encouraged learning how living things work, as I just did, where one can start in religion on a search that keeps going further towards our Creator, self-assembly and all. Also read that the Muslim Black-Stone is said to float in water. Modern science concluded possibly because of being filled with gas vesicles from meteoric impact, instead of egg yolk and oil well shaken in water where here there are vesicles made of oil instead. The theory is just science but it still connects to religion just fine. One does not win over another it's heading in the same direction towards higher ground together, on a journey of scientific fun and adventure. So for what it's worth, the Theory of Intelligent Design, must go on. Somehow…

Because of all this being a long story that would take hundreds of pages to fully detail, I did my best to sum it all up for the opening post, without my grammar suffering in the struggle to condense things down that much. I do and I don't, at the same time. What I don't like is all the trouble that it caused in Kansas, Pennsylvania and elsewhere from there not having been a coherent theory. It was also very ambiguous, making it easy for the theory to be anything someone wanted it to be. That is why I opposed it. What I do like, is the way so many who would not normally be very interested in science were studying biology and other sciences, so that they could understand the debate. Since Casey Luskin from the Discovery Institute is on the record explaining that it does not challenge evolution defined as change over time or even common ancestry, as long as "intelligent cause" is kept in a purely scientific context it's a viable theory. I am giving it a "fair hearing" this way, for people like Kansas board of education member Kathy Martin and others who need to know its true scientific merit. Normally they just get insults thrown at them for asking, or as happened at the public hearing scientists boycotted/ignored them. Here is the earlier computer model called the "Intelligence Generator" that predates my becoming active in writing ID theory: http://www.planetsou...=71381&lngWId=1 The newest model the "Intelligence Design Lab" that I plan to put the Theory of Intelligent Design into has not been published anywhere yet. The "Theory of Intelligent Design" is linked to in the opening post. It's 27 pages in all. Would be hard to reduce it down to much more than that without it becoming hard to figure out like the opening post of this topic, but here's what I called the disclaimer even though I am not distancing myself from it: I still did not see it yet, so it wasn't the movie itself it was the filming. I was worried about Kathy and others getting caught up in something that was all set to big-time backfire, again. I spent a good amount of time preventing that from happening to ones in Kansas that I cared about. And there was the claiming that there was a suppressed theory, when I knew that there was really no teachable scientific theory to even suppress. But now there is. Brain produced multicellular intelligence and AI is noncontroversial. The controversial forms of intelligence are cellular and molecular. Here are two items from References and Resources sections of the theory on these emerging sciences that are being bashed by ones who do not know what it is, or care whether they are trashing real-science: [1] Guenter Albrecht-Buehler, Robert Laughlin Rea, "Cell Intelligence", Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago. http://www.basic.nor...er/cellint0.htm Molecular Nanobiointelligence Computers, National Cancer Center, June 21, 2005, Byoung-Tak Zhang, Center for Bioinformation Technology (CBIT) & Biointelligence Laboratory, School of Computer Science and Engineering, Seoul National University Main page: http://bi.snu.ac.kr/ Molecular Nanobiointelligence Computers http://bi.snu.ac.kr/...06f/NCC2005.pdf Publications on Molecular Intelligence http://bi.snu.ac.kr/...ons/pub_mi.html My goal is to end the controversy, by showing what the premise of the theory is describing that is real. The ambiguity is then taken out of it. And even though it is not what all expected it would eventually explain the effort brought a useful theory to science. Is something for all who genuinely wanted a real scientific theory that changes the existing faith-unfriendly paradigm (without destroying another theory) that was being used to bash them. I experienced the same hateful insults after finding the middle ground of the controversy. They then have something to be proud of. All then get to experience the power of science, for themselves. Personally, I have already accomplished more in science than I thought I ever could, and now help others make their dreams come true.

I'm almost ready to publish an update to a computer program which models the very basics of cognition/intelligence and theoretically where large numbers of them are simultaneous active in a simulated world is capable of self-organizing into structures that have a tendency to mirror their likeness. But since the goal of the challenge is to produce an intelligence from an intelligence this fully qualifies as an intelligent causation (intelligent cause) so I have a serious dilemma caused by overzealous activists who attack any scientific research even at the university level that is not brain produced intelligence or AI. From experience I'm not worried about it not passing peer-review but I'm not sure what I should do in regards to the theory that goes with the computer model (with all religion aside as science requires) meeting the requirements of the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design. Around a few years ago (just prior to the release of Ben Stein – Expelled movie that I found upsetting) out of frustration over the conflict that I was stuck in the middle of I had a brainstorm that made me realize that I could clinch the theory with the computer model I have for decades been experimenting with, which would end the controversy. But instead of the side claiming to be representing science thinking that an entirely scientific solution was a great idea I was called all kinds of names, which made me realize that many (but not all) claiming to be entirely scientific were instead promoting their personal religious biases. Knowing what was right by science I did not let the insults stop me, which in time gave me an excellent reputation with "creationist" education officials and activists who were not expecting the Theory of Intelligent Design to make angels and a deity poof out of a test-tube. Here is what the screen looks like where in this case it models multicellular intelligence of a very simple insect brain: https://sites.google...ceDesignLab.zip The documentation begins with a disclaimer explaining the reason why I ended up titling the theory as I did. This makes it much easier to explain because I am then free to use the appropriate scientific words and terminology that the ID movement also uses, without being accused of trying to slip something into the public schools under radar, I'm making sure they know what it is. Here's the current state of the documentation that will be included with it. Microsoft Word format: https://sites.google...igentDesign.doc Google Viewer: https://docs.google....jA2NzZmN2NiNTEx I would rather not have to put the disclaimer in it, but from my perspective it's vital where I (as science here requires) properly title it. Before sending it in for publishing on an online software download site where ones who find it already took the time to download to experiment with the code, I thought I should try this forum in case someone here has genuine advice what I should say or do in this case. With it being computer software not on an academic website major science journals have rules that will not allow it, in addition to their rules that they do not accept theories by this title so if that's the way they want to be I'm not bothering with them. It's possible that there is another way, but from my long experience with this problem I can't think of any other way. All genuine scientific advice is greatly appreciated. I'm getting the butterflies just thinking about it. I got into the ID debate to make sure the theory is stopped, and here I am having to make sure it it becomes a permanent part of science.