NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2016,00:28) | | Ironically the same is now happening at the Reddit Creation and Intelligent Design forum. In both cases unspecific generalizations that leave things up to the reader's imagination are being used as excuses for not having a working scientific model and theory to explain how "intelligent behavior" and "intelligent cause" works. Each side has arguing points they are loyal to, and raising the bar trips them both up. |
It sucks when people steal your schtick, right? There's nothing ironic about it.
I mean after all, your nonsense is nothing but unspecific generalizations leaving things up to the reader's imagination.
You have no 'scientific model' for you are not modeling anything real. Your unspecific generalizations, as given, are strictly false. But they are truly unspecific and truly unwarranted generalizations from facts never given, but largely fantasized.
You are unable to explain the simplest phenomena using your "theory" other than by pulling in details that are nowhere stated or implied in your own work.
Specific case in point -- your link between sensation and memory, presumably a system wherein there is a direct link from sensation to memory wherein sensation serves as the addressing function and, depending on (unspecified yet hugely significant details) the content of the sensation is stored or else is read out.
That this over-simplistic generalization is false is readily determined simply in the attentive practice of day to day life.
We do not remember everything we sense. strike one
We do not notice that certain sensations recur, nor does this recurrence have any impact or lead to any change whatsoever for the vast number of 'sensations' it must be assumed we all experience. strike two
We focus our attention on the various incoming 'sensation's (hypothesized entities for which no solid grounding yet exists) to select (an operation not available in your system) the particular 'sensations' to which we attend. Very specific example: hearing and remembering a particular conversational exchange happening in a crowded party amongst many other conversations and other, non-conversational noise 'sensations'. The conversation we attend to is not the loudest nor in any other way discernible from all the other 'sensations' impinging on the body. Not even from all the other specifically auditory 'sensations'.
Yet this happens routinely. It is both inexplicable by your "theory" and, to all appearances, forbidden by it. strike three
You need to crank your pretentiousness down by several orders of magnitude, stop pretending you have done what you so clearly have not, stop taking umbrage at others daring to question, challenge, or worst of all ignore your output, and, quite simply, do the work.
Which in your case means figuring out just what the work actually is. It is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. Meaning is starkly absent from your output. You use language the way a crow or parrot would, with, at best, attention to the form, but never the meaning.
You need to abandon the ludicrous mess you've been polishing for the last decade and likely more, as it is hopeless as it stands. Filled with vague generalizations, largely fantasies with no relation to or bearing on the real world, incoherent, illogical, and utterly incapable of explaining a single phenomenon -- at least, not without bringing in things left to the reader's imagination.
You have nothing but a poor excuse for a failed attempt at crafting a hypothesis, let alone a theory.
As you've been told everywhere you've floundered around the web for the last decade.
|
