Richard Dawkins in Dublin

[diddleydoo]

Levenberg-Marquardt is an algorithm for optimizing the parameters of nonlinear functions. I'll give you a concrete example of how it's used. When a drug is administered to a rat, the drug gets chemically decomposed in the rat's body over a period of time. Suppose you take periodic blood samples to get a dataset of how much of the drug is left in the body at any one time. From this data, you want to produce a mathematical formula for how much of the drug is left at any one time. The formula depends on the initial dosage of the drug because, e.g., when the dosage is bigger the rat's liver might be unable to process it all or might continue to be strongly effective. So, you've collected the data at number of different dosage levels (using a number of rats) and you want a mathematical formula whereby, if I tell you I've a rat that took X micrograms, Y hours ago, you can tell me by formula how much of the drug is still left in the rat's body. The formula will be nonlinear, because drug metabolism is generally nonlinear. To come up with the formula, you GUESS that the formula is of the form: A*X*e^(B*Y), where e is 2.71818, X and Y are the dosage and time variables that you've empirically collected data for, and A and B are fixed constants whose values are unknown. The Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm will tell you the values for the unknown constants A and B in the formula that best fit the empirical data. This doesn't tell you whether the formula you GUESSED was suitable or not. So you take another guess -- maybe a formula of the form A*e^(B*X/(Y^2)) could be a closer fit. You give this new formula as the input to the Marquardt procedure, along with your empirically collected data, and the procedure returns the values for the constants A and B that optimize this new formula's fit to your data. Do that for several more formulas, using your imagination to come up with new formulas, and eventually you shall keep the formula that fits better than any of the other formulas you could think up of.

That is ALL that Marquardt-Levenberg is.

The innards of how Marquardt-Levenberg obtains its output are not easy to learn. It requires good background knowledge in numerical optimization. Most programmers have no need to know it (though I happen to know it myself). I feel very confident in guessing that the whippersnapper diddleydoo hasn't learned it at all, because if he had he wouldn't have made such a gross mistake as to associate it with genetic programming. Genetic programming is profoundly different from numerical optimization programming.

I fully understand the Levenberg Marquardt algorithm my boy.

The point where you fall down quite hard is the assumption that a computer program cannot simply be regarded as a complicated function to which a "fitness" can be applied. A little lateral thinking will allow you to reach this conclusion. As such Levenberg Marquardt is very much capable of performing a genetic programming test. It is of course true that it's not what it's usually used for but it's possible nonetheless.

It's a non-guided numerical optimisation based on fitness.

But hey, why take MY word for it. HERE.

Shane.

[garlandgreen]

What exactly sounds irrational, Cato? I think it's irrational to deny the spiritual/divine component to life. It's quite apparent that many things about us and our world are mysterious and unfathomable. To deny this is to deny reality.

My faith is as much, if not more, a part of me as/than any physical, tangible part of my body. I'm not saying you must think/believe as I do. I think you are denying something if you don't. So I guess your outlook does not make sense to me and my outlook does not make sense to you. Some common ground!

Relabelling ignorance- faith does nothing to enhance the substance of your position which is what you just did there. Sorry kid. No dice

[femmefatale]

Funny enough, thn only quibble I'd have against the above, is the use of the term 'divine' for the awesome mystery of existence (A mystery which, in my opinion, is not well expressed in the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?"). We could probably agree to disagree on that.

But what all the above doesn't do is provide you with a reason for believing in, supporting and identifying with the theological nonsense, unthinking hypocrisy and indefensible amoral practices and social teachings of the modern Roman Catholic Church.

It simply does not make any sort of sense.

I don't think there is anything amoral about the teachings of the Catholic Church. Yes, totally indefensible things have been done by people within the Church. Those things run contrary to Church teaching. The teachings of the Church are noble and morally sound. It's a pity not everyone in the Church is.

[femmefatale]

Relabelling ignorance- faith does nothing to enhance the substance of your position which is what you just did there. Sorry kid. No dice

Relabeling faith "ignorance" does not enhance the substance of yours.

[Tony_1975]

I don't think there is anything amoral about the teachings of the Catholic Church. Yes, totally indefensible things have been done by people within the Church. Those things run contrary to Church teaching. The teachings of the Church are noble and morally sound. It's a pity not everyone in the Church is.

Do you think it is moral to terrorise tiny children with warnings of eternal suffering in hell?
Or to sentence people to death by instructing them not to use condoms in an AIDS riddled africa?
Or to incite hatred of homosexuals by saying that they go against God?

[cactusflower]

[quote]

That's your opinion. If you think I shouldn't claim things I can't prove, why do you do the same thing? Of course environmental and genetic factors play a part in us developing as we do. No one knows for sure though what exactly makes us who and what we are. It's all pretty speculative.

No its not "pretty speculative". Its based on hundreds of years of scientific study and human experience of living on the planet.
We know very well how we became what we are and our knowledge is progressively deepening and getting more detailed.

I believe that our core being, us, is our soul. I can't prove that. As a non-physical, spiritual entity, it is not possible to produce tangible evidence for its existence.

Its not possible to produce intangible evidence either.

[femmefatale]

Funny enough, the only quibble I'd have against the above, is the use of the term 'divine' for the awesome mystery of existence (A mystery which, in my opinion, is not well expressed in the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?").

I don't remember that body in OUATIA. I was thinking of her divinely sculpted face, believe it or not!

[femmefatale]

Do you think it is moral to terrorise tiny children with warnings of eternal suffering in hell?
Or to sentence people to death by instructing them not to use condoms in an AIDS riddled africa?
Or to incite hatred of homosexuals by saying that they go against God?

Who does that?

[Tony_1975]

Who does that?

Oh FFS!
Can you just answer the question that you know you have been asked?

[garlandgreen]

Relabeling faith "ignorance" does not enhance the substance of yours.

I didn't . You provided the definition of ignorance and called it faith did you not? There's stuff in this world we don't know etc. What you don't know is called "ignorance". You seem to use "faith" in the same context