Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes.  that's the "mental bound" of AF members, lol.  Your talents are wasted here.  In fact........maybe you should go someplace where the value of your colorful text and argumentative brilliance won't go completely unacknowledged....and buddy, they're going completely unacknowledged here.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

[I_am_not_mafia]

It's interesting that PGJ mentions Jeremy England for some unexplained reason yet England's research is very much related to what I was talking about with regards to self organisation.

Dissipative adaptation applies amidst matter (and likely adequate SIMULATION par such) whence said matter attributes life like properties as time diverges.. (AS I EXPRESSED PRIOR)

Albeit, in the attribution of like like properties, self-organization is quintessentially observed...

Time diverges from what? You're sort of saying the right words but putting them all in the wrong order. For example, life like properties emerge from self organisation, not the other way round.

Dissipative structures are thought to be responsible for the increase in complexity over time. This is because self organisation works by minimising free work, that is energy that can do work, and one way that the energy can be minimised is by being dissipated. My own personal findings which I really need to publish sometime are that dissipative structures per se are not enough for both complex and dynamic systems to be created.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Dissipative adaptation applies amidst matter (and likely adequate SIMULATION par such) whence said matter attributes life like properties as time diverges.. (AS I EXPRESSED PRIOR)

Albeit, in the attribution of like like properties, self-organization is quintessentially observed...

Time diverges from what? You're sort of saying the right words but putting them all in the wrong order. For example, life like properties emerge from self organisation, not the other way round.

Dissipative structures are thought to be responsible for the increase in complexity over time. This is because self organisation works by minimising free work, that is energy that can do work, and one way that the energy can be minimised is by being dissipated. My own personal findings which I really need to publish sometime are that dissipative structures per se are not enough for both complex and dynamic systems to be created.

[*A*]
Your comprehension of English, is rather sub par.

I shall bi-stipulate said sentence [en variation], such that you may trivially observe of the non difference in meaning:

(0) Initial sentence:
Albeit, in the attribution of like like properties, self-organization is quintessentially OBSERVED...

(1) Alternate sentence (of precise non difference):
Albeit, self-organization is quintessentially OBSERVED in the attribution of like like properties.

Thereafter, order is irrelevant.

[*B*]

NOTE:
Neural models SELF ORGANIZE on the horizon of GRADIENT DESCENT bound calculations, as some cost sequence minimizes error on input signals.

Neural models' neuronal/synaptic values are NATURALLY updated (self computed), absent human intervention at said particular juncture; p(x|y).

[*C*]
Diverge definition:

(of a series) increase indefinitely as more of its terms are added.

[LastPoet]

[brewer]

Big fish/little pond synd?

[I_am_not_mafia]

Neural models SELF ORGANIZE on the horizon of GRADIENT DESCENT bound calculations, as some cost sequence minimizes error on input signals.

Such are non trivial models that like humans, LEARN ENVIRONMENTALLY. 

Bi dimensional games via atari q, are a microcosm of real life. (2d games, though of low resolution, provide non trivial variation, in the task sequence analysed)

These models take:
(0) Pixels (as humans do)
(1) Controller access absent explicit reward mapping (as humans fair)
(2) Reward notation /score (as humans fair)



[*B*]

Mathilda, likely lacks accurate comprehension of said field, (as observed amidst her ignorant responses).

My stipulations are thereafter of thorough nature, whilst Mathilda's are narrow in content.

Yeah that confirms what I suspected. You really should have paid attention to my recommendation in the shoutbox to read Christoph Koch's Biophysics of Computation. The book makes it quite clear that the kind of artificial neural networks that you are referring to are computational models inspired by the brain. Real neurons don't actually work like that. Because of how frequently you make comments about people not having written a neural network, I'm guessing that you wrote some kind of backprop ANN once (or called one of the many routines written for you in some package or library), trained it on some data and now think that you are some kind of expert. What you think you are talking about is most certainly not computational neuroscience.

Here's a tip. Leave the ego out of this.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Big fish/little pond synd?

THEIST likely accurately describes your religious stance, on observation of your irrelevant, nonsensical anecdotes...

---

Neural models SELF ORGANIZE on the horizon of GRADIENT DESCENT bound calculations, as some cost sequence minimizes error on input signals.

Such are non trivial models that like humans, LEARN ENVIRONMENTALLY. 

Bi dimensional games via atari q, are a microcosm of real life. (2d games, though of low resolution, provide non trivial variation, in the task sequence analysed)

These models take:
(0) Pixels (as humans do)
(1) Controller access absent explicit reward mapping (as humans fair)
(2) Reward notation /score (as humans fair)



[*B*]

Mathilda, likely lacks accurate comprehension of said field, (as observed amidst her ignorant responses).

My stipulations are thereafter of thorough nature, whilst Mathilda's are narrow in content.

Yeah that confirms what I suspected. You really should have paid attention to my recommendation in the shoutbox to read Christoph Koch's Biophysics of Computation. The book makes it quite clear that the kind of artificial neural networks that you are referring to are computational models inspired by the brain. Real neurons don't actually work like that. Because of how frequently you make comments about people not having written a neural network, I'm guessing that you wrote some kind of backprop ANN once (or called one of the many routines written for you in some package or library), trained it on some data and now think that you are some kind of expert. What you think you are talking about is most certainly not computational neuroscience.

Here's a tip. Leave the ego out of this.

[*A*]

Irrelevant.
I simply stipulate statistics.

I had long stipulated, of the brain based nature of deep neural networks.

Albeit, deep neural models have equaled/exceeded human performance on non trivial tasks, cognitive tasks.

[*B*]

(0) I have compacted scratch written (via basic java) neural models for letter recognition.

(1) I have composed non trivial models, SAMPLE: (utilizing residual neural network) for heart irregularity detection. (Deriving 76/500+ via international kaggle scale)
....

[I_am_not_mafia]

Big fish/little pond synd?

Not even a big fish. His fragile ego means that he needs to believe that he's good at the subject but he doesn't actually understand much about it. I saw a lot of this on my Comp Sci degree as an undergrad. Young men would be boasting about how they got drunk and then went back and programmed something in C++.

No. I didn't understand it either.

[brewer]

Big fish/little pond synd?

THEIST likely accurately describes your religious stance, on observation of your irrelevant, nonsensical anecdotes...

Oh, ouch. And actually, based on what I and others can see in your behavior, (user name, flamboyance, attention seeking, dismissing what you can't defend) you appear to be the prototypical ego maniac with an inferiority complex. 

I could have been wrong. More like little fish/little pond synd.