GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 18 2013,20:36) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 18 2013,20:21) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 18 2013,20:03) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 18 2013,18:40) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 18 2013,17:48) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 18 2013,17:33) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 18 2013,09:07) | Gary's single ISCID post. And that one was about his membranes lab exercise. That's a special kind of welcome ISCID provided Gary.
I've got several posts that are still on ISCID. |
By the time I arrived (to see whether the self-assembly demonstration would be controversial in that ID community) the ISCID forum was already on its way out.
And whether what I was working on at the time belongs there or not is easily answered by what the ISCID forum says it's for:
| Quote | | The ISCID Forums are aimed at generating insight into the nature of complex systems (e.g. biological complexity, organizational complexity, etc.) and the ontological status of purpose, especially from the vantage point of various information- and design-theoretic models. |
With all considered: At that time the self-assembly demo was the most appropriate thing I had to contribute, and since it did not cause a fuss at ISCID things went very well there. A year later what was explained in the topic was on its way to all the science teachers in the US via National Science Teachers Association journal. So at least that IDea actually made it into the public school classrooms! And ISCID can share the pride, in that happening... |
Let me make sure I'm understanding this correctly: entering a single comment on a forum that "doesn't cause a fuss" is grounds to claim success? Is that right? |
Yes.
I'm used to chaos erupting from a topic like this that I post. If it turned out like this thread then I would have had to plan/prepare for a long protest. But the ID community found no need to argue against it, and as was expected there was no protest after its publishing. |
I made a post that created no fuss at all at the Kurzweil AI forum. Yet Gary, in apparent hypocrisy, is on the record objecting that my participation there was a negative for me. |
No fuss at the Kurzweil AI forum over your post is a plus for me. None getting upset after you told them (and later positive comment in another thread in regards to my participating instead of causing trouble there) was a bad thing for you. But I can understand how easy it is think of ways of rationalizing the situation you are now in, that at least some in your choir will actually believe. |
Gary delivers more projection.
And it seems to be time for the usual footnote...
It's not a diagram, but it does seem to annoy Gary to have his reasons for approaching discussion the way he does laid out clearly and documented in his own testimony.
The question of why Gary goes for false, provocative, and malicious statements when mentioning me or replying to me does have an answer. Gary thinks that 1) I have "big-bucks" and 2) if I say something actionable, Gary could sue me and get them. We know this from Gary himself. He refers to "big-bucks" (quoted in this post). And Gary previously revealed his premeditated approach and strategy for using the legal system to enrich himself:
| Quote |
And before I came to this forum Casey gave me free legal advice in regard to what is legally over the line enough to easily win a case for that can come at me from places like this. Where reversed upon Wesley, it would be like someone anonymously calling campus security where they are working to report that their loss of mind is endangering the lives of all in the building they are in, when the truth that was stretched out of proportion is that they needed to use a small amount of flammable liquid to patch around the air conditioning unit that let water pour in every time it rained.
|
And Gary confirmed again that he was still looking for actionable statements from me here:
| Quote |
I was hoping Wesley would at least attempt to find something "actionable" (that is not outright criminal like chaining me inside a basement torture chamber) that was not already tried on me.
|
Unfortunately for Gary, he has not and will not be able to provoke me into actionable statements.
Gary's otherwise apparently bizarre behavior in his responses to me becomes explicable with the understanding that he has been angling for a lawsuit, confirmed definitively and spectacularly here. |
I’m weirdly fascinated by how after going over the line you get into this defensive mode and like blame me for it happening. I already explained how science is not usually very well paying. Evolutionary biology is not one of the get rich quick fields, and might be more like another fast way to become a starving scientist.
With the petition and all, there’s no way to compare the legal system tactics from your anti-ID movement. My message has consistently been the opposite. What you are powerless against is the science that makes all else irrelevant.
In your case what I must most want out of you is your flagellum powered cell model circuited as per the ID theory, which will easily enough work, but I can’t program everything. If it checks out by me then I could reference that in a footnote in cellular intelligence section, which already explains well enough to model that from. Adding eye and chemosensor patches are optional. Can also test to see whether real e.coli and other can be trained to either attract or repel from stimuli depending on prior experience. If cells can be trained then it’s not a simple feedback system or can be never changing ROM there is a RAM memory somewhere to store proper actions that the ID model also has in it, for that purpose. The exact chemistry of cellular temporal memory is not known but literature shows cells can anticipate a shock of some sort and be in defensive mode in anticipation of another, which might work where time reference since last event of that sensory type is included in addressing and can test that against experiments with slime-molds and other things.
And it just so happens that I just finished uploaded an update to the Intelligence Design Lab where the “MAIN INTELLIGENCE GENERATING ALGORITHM” at the end of the Intelligence.frm file now features a circuit diagram (in comments) that has a numbered step in code that propagates signals for each lobe cycle.
https://sites.google.com/site.......ab2.zip
For simplicity sake the good guess code was taken out of the circuit. Still works great without it. Likely need to remove good guess for chemotaxis anyway, now it’s done for you. With that out of the way, the Intelligence Design Lab should be much easier for you to code from.
The way I see it, science makes it possible for even you to (for the most part) redeem yourself. But that requires (language of your choice) programming of a novel computer model to add to an earlier paper from you that at least shows you might have the right stuff to code it. You can later wire-in other senses. First step is your Chemotaxis Intelligence Design Lab but you don’t have to call it that, where you hate that name so much there’s no way you ever would.
There is so much novel new science that can be programmed from this theory you are left with no good excuses at all for complaining about not finding a science worthy paper even I would have to love you for. It’s easily PNAS and/or Nature material. At least I think it deserves it.
The winning strategy is to ignore all the things that are not science. What matters is theory that develops in a way to assimilate you in a way that is good or bad depending on what you choose. On my end, that takes time getting the Intelligence Design Lab just right, so that a download worth looking at is online right now to help make this an even more memorable week for us all. The Lab still does not draw the entire circuit (will next get back to that) but I was able to resist the lure of the forum trolls and instead reduced down the algorithm variables to very minimum, which in turn cleaned up a big coding mess that made it harder to figure out and work on. I did not forget what PSC and other worlds need from me the most, and I’m relieved that I managed to optimize the algorithm by now. But I did not neglect your scientific needs, in this new design, and was able to have this posted for your wonderful Sunday morning enjoyment, to get to work on too!
--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
|
