NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 02 2014,19:12) | | In regards to who the burden of proof has long been on for the Theory of Intelligent Design this sentence settles that issue by it clearly now being their responsibility to show evidence that this "challenge for all" is unscientific: |
The burden of proof lies where it always does -- on the one making the positive claim. That would be you.
Given your track record of errors, omissions, and fabrications, I think we would be justified in auto-rejecting anything you proposed. The odds would certainly be with us.
Hold it right there. What computer model? Your software is not a model because there is no thing in the real world that is being modeled. You're making it up as you go along. That you might occasionally get results that look like the results that would be gotten from a natural creature's behavior in the real world is a coincidence.
You have no model, for you are not modeling anything.
Once again, your misuse and abuse and general ignorance of language trips you up. Much to your detriment.
| Quote | | also provides a precise, testable and scientifically useful operational definition for "intelligent cause" where each of the three emergent levels can be individually modeled, with a model predicted to be possible that generates an intelligent causation event, now goal of further research and challenge for all. |
Already disposed of, see above. None of us, nor, apparently, anyone in the world at large, accepts your pronouncement that you have a 'precise, testable and scientifically useful operational definition for "intelligent cause"' There's not one person on earth, except possibly you, who accepts or believes this statement to be true.
The reaction of a bunch of programmers to the code is irrelevant to the questions of "Is it a model?", "What is being modeled?", "Does it contain a precise definition of 'intelligent cause'?", "Does it contain a testable definition of 'intelligent cause'?", "Does it contain anything scientifically useful with respect to the [undefined, vague, and equivocal] notion of 'intelligent cause'?", and "Does it contain an operational definition of 'intelligent cause'?"
| Quote | | Constant demands for evidence and claims of unsupported assertions is a way to ignore the real scientific issues that now exist. |
False. In each part and in the entirety.
You imply by your phrasing that you have raised new issues, that these issues now exist because of you/your work/your software. Nothing could be further from the truth. You have yet to expose a single problematic not already known.
I hate to have to keep repeating this, but really, your self-aggrandizement has grown wildly out of control and needs to be challenged. You are not doing anything new.
Demands for evidence are routine for claims. You are making extraordinary claims, and that calls for extraordinary evidence. Yet you provide no evidence whatsoever and get snippy when anyone has the temerity to call you on it. You cannot link to a single occurrence of you providing any evidence in support of your claims.
It is equally appropriate to call you on your false assertions. For example, your misuse of the word 'learning' invalidates your claim to be doing Cognitive Science or working that arena. Your misuse and complete misunderstanding of the word 'evolution' disqualifies you from being taken seriously when you pontificate on that subject. Your constant mistakes about nature and living creatures (from cell formation to how a creature interacts with its perceived milieu) disqualify you from being taken seriously when you talk about biology. That your software 'model' lacks any factual basis in biology is obvious to all, and this falsifies your claims that the 'model' can lead to any new knowledge about how living creatures actually do anything at all. You can't even keep straight your story about the need for a hippocampus, or absence of said need, the requirement for antennae and sensillia or lack of said requirement, etc. Your incoherent and clumsy prose, reliant on constant reinterpretation of key terms so as to reflect 'what you really meant' disqualifies you from being taken seriously as a writer.
| Quote | | I and others owe them nothing, for finding this and other original scientific challenges so exciting. |
True but irrelevant. You don't have to explain to anyone why you find anything exciting. What you are, however, called upon to do, what you owe the world, is an explanation of why we should be excited about whatever bright shiny (and inevitably malformed) concept has caught your attention.
| Quote | | We don't need bullies doing all they can to stop the science fun, that leads to new models of interest to AI and more, that has already been accomplished. |
No, we don't. But you are not being bullied. You are being called on, with increasing levels of frustration, to live up to the requirements attendant upon what you are claiming to be doing.
You owe us evidence.
You owe us correction of false assertions.
You owe us the courtesy of responding to the actual criticisms raised against your "theory" and your risible software rather than the constant barrage of self-important self-adopted martyrdom, the ongoing deflection and diversion maneuvers, the accusations of (non-existent) bullying.
If you actually had even the smallest quantum of what you claim, you would be fighting for the chance to present evidence, clean up your prose, improve and/or correct your abstractions, and respond to your critics.
That's what scientists do. That's what educated lay people do. That's not what you do. You draw the conclusion.
It is amusing to see you act as if you are somehow raising new challenges for science to address. To the best of my knowledge, you have yet to raise a single issue or problem that is not only already well known, but has been known for many decades.
Your software is an irrelevancy in this regard. It raises no new problems, exposes no new issues, and is, as noted above, most emphatically not a model at all.
So, once again, epic fail, Gary.
Ha, ha, charade you are.
|
