Mangled Thoughts

Recapitulating the essentials of the A.I. project the claim was, a machine could be made which is exactly the same as brain, and thus could fuction exactly as the brain does.Tricks were asserted to be evidence that A.I.ists had succeeded in articulating some structures of the brain. The evidence, however, was nothing more than functions which can be coded into machine language, thus are trivial to what the brain does. The claim lead to not simply an oversimplified notion of the brain, but a fallacious notion of the brain and how it works so that speech is possible, rational reasoning is possible, imagination. They drew on the false mind-body dualism, asserting a programme can htus be rendered exactly as a mind residing within mere material body the computer hardware. Well, there is only brain, not mind in brain. Even minus the rubbish of dualism, however, the A.Iists. didn’t, at bottom, pay attention to what the brain is at all. While neuro-scientists have, over some two hundred years of inquiry have achieved very fine fndamental advance in understanding the brain, there is yet much which is still a mystery, much is yet to be discovered, as one distinguished neuro-scientist once related. There is, as yet, no exhaustive theory of the brain, and, yet that is what the A.I. claim entails, an exhaustive theory of the brain.The whole A.I. project, from the begnning, was a descent into charlatanism. There were good consequences:

1.GUI was developed to serve the A.I. project. Bill gates saw the real value of GUI, it could deliver a computer to noncomputer experts, and he went further, the value of that resided in, he worked out how he could deliver a computer at cheap prices, and the rest is history.

2. Engineering advances which have translated into robotics, applied in manufacutring, surgical technology, and a myriad of other applications.

Some of the A.Iists are upset, they believe they `deserve’ some of the prfits from such inventions. The short answer is, if they had not been so besotted with a false hypothesis, and exercised entrepenurial get up and go, who can tell, it might be some of them whose names were attached to successful enterprises. As it is, they have nothing to complain of at all. They were paid by institutions , the U.S. Govt. threw large sums to them to run their project and thus they havbe not been cheated of anything at all. To the contrary, they wasted considerable sums, much taken from taxpayers, to waste on charlatanism, or, to use a telling word, alchemy.

Computer modelling of climate suffers from the same defects as A.I. The claim, climate can be `modelled’ on a computer, entails reality can be replicated in a computer machine. Next, it assumes science has an exchaustive account of climate, and, the account of climate happens to show climate ca be rendered in machine code and programme - in short, climate behaves a s deductive logic machine does. Indeed, one pin of that in the AGW suggests that erroneous notion, the determinism of man causing global warming/ climate change. It cannot be otherwise because, boosters of the rubbish of AGW are asserting `scenarios’ generated when running the programmes or, to use the obfuscating term, `models’, are true.

It might be objected by AGW modellers, their claim is not the same as that for A.I. , they are not trying to instantiate reality in a machine at all, that all that they have done is write programmes which are only approximate simulations of climate. That does not eliminate the objections at all. In fact, it makes the use of computer programmes to run climate epxeriments worse.

First, an exhaustive theory of climate, how it is generated, is required. If computer modelling is to be coounted as epxerimentally true, it cannot be left at an approximation of reality, it must replicate reality. Why, is an amusing question in this case, for all we have to do is to refer to the paragraph above on:

Output of scenarios showing man causes global warming, and hideous consequences because of that human manipulation of climate, has a probability of being generated by a `model’/programme of random chance only. Nothing has been demonstrated to confirm the AGW claim at all, and that failure is on the assumption climate can be recreated in a computer.

Nothing at all has been demonstrated to confirm the deterministic arrow from man to claim. The result is thus even far wrose for the AGW mystogogues. For, taking the starting point, the models are only approximations of climate, though programmed with sufficient instructions and terms and search trees to capture enough of how climate is generated, then, any `scenario’ generated having only a low probability, must have an even lower probability of occurring at all. In other words, if there is a period of climactic patterns which is the same as a scenario generated by the computer, it is not because it was predicted, it is because so many scenario’s have been generated that there might be one scenario which is a match. The force of that implication is clear enough, that a scenario might match a period wopuld not be a fact of correlation between the machine and reality at all. The match would be absolutely meaningless, nonsense entirely. But it is worse than that.

The computer models are absolutely meaningless,even if it were the case the AGWers have written approximate programme, that entails the elimination of physical factors. The scenario generated is generated, in short, in a machine `universe’ which is not the same as reality, the machine `universe’, because it does not instantiate reality, is not generating data about reality, it is gnerating data testing the run of a programme only. Machine results, therefore, have no value at all as scientific evidence, none at all. The climate models are only well written, valid programmes. Irrespective of output, the result is true if the programme is a true deductive argument, if it is not there is no output.

The above objections run just on the assumption the climate modellers have approximated reality in machine code. The next set of objections deal the final death blow to the claims of the climate modellers.

The AGW claim and the climate modelling claim rests on the assertion of a complete theory of climate. Folks, that assertion is false, entirely false. That it is entirely false, is amusingly, already disclosed in the ludicrous determinist assumption of man causes global warming.The determinist assertion is not science, not the scientific definition of cause and effect at all. The determinist assumption is just one more debasement of science by the AGW/Climate Change mystogogues. So, there are several things to shred, beginning with theory.

[Taking a short break]