RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 330 331 332 333 334 [335] 336 337 338 339 340 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2014,12:53   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 03 2014,12:40)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 03 2014,12:01)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 03 2014,11:42)
FYI

Forgive my not having time to feed thine pee contest trolls but I'm right in the middle of the IDLab version of
Spock's Brain. I must get back to work on him. So many neurons to account for! Or sort of anyway.

I successfully transplanted the new Grid Network into the IDLab4 critter. It's Attract and Repel location behavior is now excellent. The tan color circle+dot (showing where it's internal world model location is at) heads straight for the attractor/feeder like it did in the demo program. In its internal world model is already able to get from place to place. But there is no motor controller coded into it yet, so it just slowly wanders like a zombie that loves bumping into walls.

This is where in the coding project there is no longer a center angle vector as before, which was a problem with some combinations that summed to zero degrees. There is now just its moving through the grid, where something like this (from an earlier link) is very needed:


http://blog.brainfacts.org/2013.......d_k7v0u

There is “distance”:

Distance = Sqr((X ^ 2) + (Y^ 2))

and a “direction” from Trigonometry function:

Direction = Atan2(Y/X)

The “2” indicates function code is included in Math routines to return full radian matching computer screen axis, angle 0 points right.

The illustration does not show all else the grid network could be doing besides providing distance and direction of its physical movements. But we don't have to worry about that, the computer model makes the rest of the controller transplant child's play, I think..

The folly of you mapping two-dimensional space and completely ignoring the third dimension has already been pointed out, but you outdo yourself when you describe movement as heading "SW" (presumably for southwest).

What makes you so sure that I was the one who drew the illustration?

My apologies if it wasn't you, but if it wasn't, you're still obviously using it to represent your own feeble ideas, and your "animal" can still only move in two dimensions.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2014,12:54   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 03 2014,13:40)
...
What makes you so sure that I was the one who drew the illustration?

Gee, could it be the complete lack of attribution to some other source?  You know, one of those things that actual researchers, actual scientists, even people in the humanities, are expected to do when they use material they did not produce and that is not already in the public domain?
Even in those cases, attribution is usually given just to make completely clear who did what.
Oh, silly me -- that's why there's no attribution.  Making things clear is against your standard policies and behaviors.
Never mind.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2014,08:12   

Quote (NoName @ April 03 2014,12:54)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 03 2014,13:40)
...
What makes you so sure that I was the one who drew the illustration?

Gee, could it be the complete lack of attribution to some other source?  You know, one of those things that actual researchers, actual scientists, even people in the humanities, are expected to do when they use material they did not produce and that is not already in the public domain?
Even in those cases, attribution is usually given just to make completely clear who did what.
Oh, silly me -- that's why there's no attribution.  Making things clear is against your standard policies and behaviors.
Never mind.

In fairness to GG, and I missed it too, he does provide a link to the site where the image came from.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2014,08:22   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 04 2014,09:12)
Quote (NoName @ April 03 2014,12:54)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 03 2014,13:40)
...
What makes you so sure that I was the one who drew the illustration?

Gee, could it be the complete lack of attribution to some other source?  You know, one of those things that actual researchers, actual scientists, even people in the humanities, are expected to do when they use material they did not produce and that is not already in the public domain?
Even in those cases, attribution is usually given just to make completely clear who did what.
Oh, silly me -- that's why there's no attribution.  Making things clear is against your standard policies and behaviors.
Never mind.

In fairness to GG, and I missed it too, he does provide a link to the site where the image came from.

Fair enough, although that doesn't exactly meet any standard of adequate professionalism of which I am aware.
Certainly any of my professors would have punted a paper that included a link to a source without proper footnoting/referencing.  Links, especially from repetitive-link-posting-disorder victims such as Gary, are just not good enough.  IMNSHO ;-)

  
k.e..



Posts: 5430
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2014,09:19   

Quote (NoName @ April 04 2014,16:22)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 04 2014,09:12)
 
Quote (NoName @ April 03 2014,12:54)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 03 2014,13:40)
...
What makes you so sure that I was the one who drew the illustration?

Gee, could it be the complete lack of attribution to some other source?  You know, one of those things that actual researchers, actual scientists, even people in the humanities, are expected to do when they use material they did not produce and that is not already in the public domain?
Even in those cases, attribution is usually given just to make completely clear who did what.
Oh, silly me -- that's why there's no attribution.  Making things clear is against your standard policies and behaviors.
Never mind.

In fairness to GG, and I missed it too, he does provide a link to the site where the image came from.

Fair enough, although that doesn't exactly meet any standard of adequate professionalism of which I am aware.
Certainly any of my professors would have punted a paper that included a link to a source without proper footnoting/referencing.  Links, especially from repetitive-link-posting-disorder victims such as Gary, are just not good enough.  IMNSHO ;-)

Gary has no ethical standards that provoke concern to him. The whole idea is more foreign than science to him. He's on a one man  mission to draw attention to his misery.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2014,07:09   

Quote (k.e.. @ April 04 2014,09:19)
 
Quote (NoName @ April 04 2014,16:22)
   
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 04 2014,09:12)
     
Quote (NoName @ April 03 2014,12:54)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 03 2014,13:40)
...
What makes you so sure that I was the one who drew the illustration?

Gee, could it be the complete lack of attribution to some other source?  You know, one of those things that actual researchers, actual scientists, even people in the humanities, are expected to do when they use material they did not produce and that is not already in the public domain?
Even in those cases, attribution is usually given just to make completely clear who did what.
Oh, silly me -- that's why there's no attribution.  Making things clear is against your standard policies and behaviors.
Never mind.

In fairness to GG, and I missed it too, he does provide a link to the site where the image came from.

Fair enough, although that doesn't exactly meet any standard of adequate professionalism of which I am aware.
Certainly any of my professors would have punted a paper that included a link to a source without proper footnoting/referencing.  Links, especially from repetitive-link-posting-disorder victims such as Gary, are just not good enough.  IMNSHO ;-)

Gary has no ethical standards that provoke concern to him. The whole idea is more foreign than science to him. He's on a one man  mission to draw attention to his misery.

It looks to me like The Three Stooges arrived, to fix our science problem, nyuk nyuk nyuk.

I thought there was no way they would miss the brainfacts.org link right under the illustration and in the text flow. Looks like I overestimated them, should have used bold type with arrows pointing to it with flashing graphic above and below to help them find the link.

If the illustration was from me then just like in school my name would be on it somewhere. I make sure to include that using a small fontsize to help indicate which ones came from me.

--------------
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.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2014,07:28   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 05 2014,08:09)
...
I thought there was no way they would miss the brainfacts.org link right under the illustration and in the text flow. Looks like I overestimated them, should have used bold type with arrows pointing to it with flashing graphic above and below to help them find the link.

If the illustration was from me then just like in school my name would be on it somewhere. I make sure to include that using a small fontsize to help indicate which ones came from me.

Now if you could only engage with matters of actual intellectual content in the same fashion, we might actually make some progress other than merely increasing the page count.

So how about it, Gary?  Are you prepared to clarify and justify 'molecular intelligence'?
Are you prepared to account for your misuse of the term 'learning' from Cognitive Science and Psychology?
Are you prepared to discuss whether or not a hippocampus is a sine qua non of "intelligent cause"?  What about antennae and sensillia?
Are you prepared to discuss the obvious difficulties for any biological entity that would store 'all possible paths' at each moment of time?
Are you prepared to justify your claim that your software in any way, shape, or form models anything from biology?  What are the properties that emerge from your software?  Where and how are your "three levels" represented in your code?
Etc.

Your "theory" and the alleged significance of your software have both been beaten into a fine pink mist long since dispersed by the breeze.  It's going to take a lot of effort to gather up the fractured bits and reassemble them into anything useful or interesting, but hey, it's your life, waste it as you please.  Just don't insist that we have to have to present something better or adopt your effluent.  Insofar as that is necessary, we merely present current Biology, Cognitive Science, and their related disciplines and sub-disciplines, none of which can benefit from anything you are up to.
As was once said about a co-worker in the "say something positive about the person" portion of an annual review:
'Well, he emits carbon dioxide, so he must be good for the trees'.
That's the sum total of the benefit you provide.
Well, that and the lulz.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2014,08:12   

Quote (NoName @ April 05 2014,07:28)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 05 2014,08:09)
...
I thought there was no way they would miss the brainfacts.org link right under the illustration and in the text flow. Looks like I overestimated them, should have used bold type with arrows pointing to it with flashing graphic above and below to help them find the link.

If the illustration was from me then just like in school my name would be on it somewhere. I make sure to include that using a small fontsize to help indicate which ones came from me.

Now if you could only engage with matters of actual intellectual content in the same fashion, we might actually make some progress other than merely increasing the page count.

So how about it, Gary?  Are you prepared to clarify and justify 'molecular intelligence'?
Are you prepared to account for your misuse of the term 'learning' from Cognitive Science and Psychology?
Are you prepared to discuss whether or not a hippocampus is a sine qua non of "intelligent cause"?  What about antennae and sensillia?
Are you prepared to discuss the obvious difficulties for any biological entity that would store 'all possible paths' at each moment of time?
Are you prepared to justify your claim that your software in any way, shape, or form models anything from biology?  What are the properties that emerge from your software?  Where and how are your "three levels" represented in your code?
Etc.

Your "theory" and the alleged significance of your software have both been beaten into a fine pink mist long since dispersed by the breeze.  It's going to take a lot of effort to gather up the fractured bits and reassemble them into anything useful or interesting, but hey, it's your life, waste it as you please.  Just don't insist that we have to have to present something better or adopt your effluent.  Insofar as that is necessary, we merely present current Biology, Cognitive Science, and their related disciplines and sub-disciplines, none of which can benefit from anything you are up to.
As was once said about a co-worker in the "say something positive about the person" portion of an annual review:
'Well, he emits carbon dioxide, so he must be good for the trees'.
That's the sum total of the benefit you provide.
Well, that and the lulz.

Gary,
Maybe you missed this bit from the BrainFacts terms and conditions:
 
Quote
No material from the BrainFacts.org blog may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way without the explicit permission of the owner.


--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2014,11:06   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 05 2014,09:12)
...
Gary,
Maybe you missed this bit from the BrainFacts terms and conditions:
     
Quote
No material from the BrainFacts.org blog may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way without the explicit permission of the owner.

Oh noes!  Gary is being oppressed, martyred, bullied by being held to the standards of an academia he was never part of.  Being held to the standards of intellectual property rights!
The horror!  The sheer unfairness!

ROFLMAO

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2014,19:53   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 05 2014,08:12)
Gary,
Maybe you missed this bit from the BrainFacts terms and conditions:
   
Quote
No material from the BrainFacts.org blog may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way without the explicit permission of the owner.

From bottom of the page where illustration came from (not link to terms and conditions that from what I read more apply to authors who blog there):

 
Quote
BrainFacts.org is a public information initiative of the Society for Neuroscience, The Kavli Foundation, and the Gatsby Charitable Foundation.

The BrainFacts.org blog is for opinion and conversation about what’s new, notable, or inspiring in neuroscience.


I'm not the only one using the illustration. Also, the search engine robots are collecting them, with it rather absurd to expect them to not because of what you found on another page.

Whoever drew the illustration should have put their name on it. I do not even know for sure who that is.

Where I'm now at with the computer model makes me wonder whether the field forces propelling its MyNetX,MyNetY location signal are helping to align the multiple grids. Head direction and its MyEnvX,MyEnvY location would also be an influence.

Since the Grid Cell Network model only needs one grid there is no need to get into multiple grid dynamics. It would though be best for all that to more or less on its own happen when there is more than one grid.

--------------
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.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2014,03:21   

So that this forum is not left out I'm quoting the following here, for your inspiration too, amen:

Quote
Jesus and others like Prophet Muhammad are role models who were way ahead in their times where their legend will live on from just their influence, good advice. Don't need supernatural divine intervention for them to exist in culture and religion as hero's of the oppressed. Arguing that some of the legend might be bigger than real-life will not make them go away.

Where science and technology influences things is the age-old question of the origin of life, our Genesis. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is said to be a clue to how our creator works and while challenging the taboo theory of you know what I ended up with a trinity to explain in the Conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......Trinity  

The uncapitalized version of the word means three of something that combine into one. It was easy enough to mention this where the word helps conceptualize something that some mainstream religions try to make sense of.

Quote

From Theory of Intelligent Design by Gary S. Gaulin

Conclusion

This theoretical model for explaining the origin of intelligence and the phenomenon of intelligent cause predicts that we are an intelligent design, created by three (a trinity of) emergent self-similar levels of biological intelligence, as follows:

(1) The behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular intelligence, whereby genome-based biological systems learn over time by replication of accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive descendant offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells, and is the primary source of learned instinctual behavior.

(2) Molecular intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular intelligence. In sexual reproduction gamete cells from a father and mother are differently expressed as a sperm cell and egg cell that must combine into one complete cellular intelligence system, as required by the first level (molecular intelligence), which must embody both halves at the same time. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment cellular responses, migration and social-cell differentiation.

(3) Cellular intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular intelligence. A multicellular body is then controlled by a neural brain expressing all three levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly), and religious behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, migration and social differentiation.

The combined knowledge of all three of these intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may stay to defend their nests "till death do they part". Otherwise merciless alligators fiercely protect their well-cared-for offspring who are taught how to lure nest building birds into range by putting sticks on their head and will scurry into her mouth when in danger. For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from an eternal conscious loving "spirit" existing at another level our multicellular intelligence level cannot directly experience. It is of course possible that one or both of the parents will later lose interest in the partnership, or they may have more offspring than they can possibly take care of, or none at all, but "for better or for worse" for such intelligence anywhere in the universe, there will nonetheless be the strong love we still need and cherish to guide us, forever through generations of time...


It's not leaving conscious experience out of the equation and does not need a "natural selection did it" type answer to conclude this way.

The first sentence of the theory also took a few years to get right, in part because of absolutely needing how Genesis sums up the relationship.

Quote
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level combine to create another (Logos, animating) level of intelligence for it to control at the next, which results in emergent self-similar entities each systematically in their own image, likeness.


Why scripture pertaining to the origin of life speaks of our Creator/God in plural form is one of the the biggest mysteries of them all. But it all makes perfect sense in scientific intelligence theory that sorts out the systematics using model to operationally define "intelligence" the same as David Heiserman (robotics) and Arnold Trehub (human brain) describe for a simplified circuit diagram, that always worked great for me too, in making progress understanding what intelligence systematically reduces down to.

https://sites.google.com/site.......del.GIF

Someone who follows a religion that tries to conceptualize a trinity from the source of consciousness and invisible to us in the behavior of matter might be able to understand it more easily, even though it is not normally considered science. Genesis remains unchanged. What does change is science, that now has a "chromosomal Adam and Eve" in it and not because I said so or the theory explained why it's just the way it is when modern science finally gets into serious "chromosome speciation" research.

You have to look at it as origin of life having always been one of the biggest questions of them all in fact it's even sacred, with it long having been said that for some reason staying in step with Genesis is the only way to make progress towards truth/science in regards to how we were created. I now have to say that it's certainly not bad for a thousands of years old origin of life theory that I only had to stay in step with that would otherwise be much harder to explain. For example where origin of life scripture instead explained our creator in singular form (like some who ridicule religion believe it should have been) there would not be the trinity puzzle that must make sense just like this in a scientific theory or else it's on the wrong track. I would then be going against religious scripture, which makes it a very hard sell and right away theology finds the theory uninteresting because of it not helping to answer their biggest questions like how there could be a trinity of intelligence systems in biology leading to where consciousness forever comes from.

Religion will adapt just fine, like it always did, thanks in part to theory to help make scientific sense of what modern religion has right along been saying in regards to the origins of life and what makes us human.

With this forum into intelligence related theory that influences the religious realm and it being Sunday I thought I would explain all this to you, so you'll know what's up, with what I have going on that influences religion in a positive way that makes intelligence science more fun in religion too. Disciples welcomed. :D


--------------
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.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2014,06:22   

And from thread for Sal's Cosmos:

 
Quote (keiths @ April 06 2014,01:49)
A nice comment from Diogenes at Larry Moran's blog (there are lots of links in the original, but I can't be arsed to transcribe them):
   
Quote

Torley is one of the smarter IDers. That's damning with faint praise, it's true.

In the infamous MathGrrl thread at Uncommon Descent, where MathGrrl asked the IDiots how to compute the change in Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" for the simplest conceivable genetic changes, Torley was the only one with the balls to actually do a computation. His math was all f*&@ed up (he thought genes were about 100,000 bps long) but at least he immediately computed that gene duplication vastly increases Dembski's "Complex Specified Information."

At least Torley, for a brief moment, conceded that natural processes can increase Dembski's CSI. Which would normally mean that ID is dead dead dead.

Then he took it back, naturally. A few days later Torley wrote another post where he basically invoked the usual ID circular-logic fraud-- since gene duplication is a natural process that increases Dembski's CSI, and that's the answer they don't want, therefore Dembski's CSI just shouldn't be computed for gene duplication events. It's like you're doing a double blind test on a pill that's said to cure cancer. Uh-oh, you find the same number of patients who took your pill got cancer as the control group. That's easy to fix-- just say the pill doesn't work on people who will later get cancer. Problem solved! Torley's take-it-back post is entitled, and I kid you not, "Why there’s no such thing as a CSI Scanner." Uh-- we know why, Vince. Every time you give us a real equation for CSI, we can show by simple f&%$ing math that natural processes increase it enormously. So you damn well better not give us an equation, you ID frauds.

Torley is also unusual among IDiots in that, in the MathGrrl thread, he admitted that Dembski's CSI is based on a "probability" calculation in which the "probability" is never the actual probability of the evolutionary path under consideration, but is instead the fake probability of a totally unrelated process-- the random scrambling of all parts-- which I call the tornado probability. Dembski himself almost never admits that his CSI calculation for all natural processes is based always on tornado probability and never on the probability of real evolutionary pathways (Richard Wein got him to admit it once, sort of, but mostly Dembski obfuscates and BS's, which is one of the reasons why none of the IDiots know how to compute CSI. Dembski doesn't want them to know how.)

The other IDiots, though they brag and boast they are smarter than the world's scientists, can't do long division. Multiplication troubles almost all of them.

Look at their reaction to Larry's ultra-simplified math. Larry tried to dumb neutral evolution down to simple multiplication and IDiots like Sal Cordova can't understand the math. Of multiplication. Multi-f%^&ing-cation. It isn't even frikkin calculus. How the hell should we communicate with these people? Hand puppets? But every UDite think he's Galileo.


As it turns out information from intelligence is not the same as randomness and with all said you're arguing over nothing while science marches on with Theory of Intelligent Design I'm explaining already culturally ushered in from the days of my getting over accidentally become a "radio pirate" with the FCC having to come make me sign off that led to my talking about this sort of thing that worded it in band name and lyrics. Since back then communication was one-way (fax from me out to others) I have no way of knowing what was in the Grunge scene pipeline was a thought from me, but all together was none the less going there, wherever it came from. Thus, this is already weirdly available, for you ID enjoyment too:

Gel - Collective Soul with the Atlanta Symphony Youth Orchestra

Shine - Collective Soul with the Atlanta Symphony Youth Orchestra

That is a very serious calling song and "Shine" theme in now historic concert that made it easy for me to show what I was trying to explain, before there was a Collective Soul on the radio for an example of it. Not preachy, and later still apply, in a way like now where I can later link to a video with Atlanta Symphony Youth Orchestra in a forum that helps take us ever further into science history just by my doing that.

I did not think up "Collective Soul" or prescribe lyrics. It's others helping to explain what the Discovery Institute was more or less talking about out in Seattle right after my writing a short book "Science To Believe In" for radio talents to get around to those they feel worthy. It explained the three levels that are still explained now, but without added detail and computer model to help show its systematics. The theory only improved in time, to where it is now. What came next from Seattle after Grunge to start a cultural revolution with somewhere at least in the end working in the theory the book first introduced a long time ago, that's still holding true in 2014.

I do not think that the Discover Institute knew what it was up against in regards to where culture change would be willing to go with the theory they were talking about. In proper context it has a way of awakening this one back to life again as well:

meat puppets backwater

Culture changers love to be in on culture changing science, but they don't want to argue whether "evolutionary theory" has weaknesses or not. They more or less already spoke on where to go by describing how in the backwater something that never changes is always swirling, that in a jiffy can suck down an Institute like the DI, but they got lucky by my finding theory worth defending from their premise. That's how I have to look at it anyway, for good reason pertaining to culture change that already exists to stay in step with otherwise all the noise they asked for ends up working against them.

In my opinion what happens in places other than UD is far more important than opinions there, but to each their own. To me it just seems like screaming at each other in a closet many just as well you stay inside, so they can't hear you. What matters the most is what's happening outside, where people program models and work on all sorts of other things that keeps both science and religion going through time.

--------------
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.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2014,08:08   

And the distractions and deflections continue.

Did it ever cross your mind that the other uses of the illustration you stole might have been used by permission?

Did it ever occur to you that mentioning here that what goes on at UD isn't really particularly significant or important is preaching to the choir?

No, no more than it occurs to you to stop distracting and deflection and instead address the many flaws, errors and outright contradictions in your work.
So be it.  We'll continue to laugh and point until you seriously engage on the issues.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2014,22:09   


  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2014,00:56   

-----> Bob Dylan Subterranean Homesick Blues - Cards Video <------

--------------
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.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2014,07:28   

So how long before your software critter picks up a banjo and starts to sing in a nasally whine?

And even though your attentions have obviously drifted away from the topics at hand, let me remind you again that neither your "theory" nor your software has any ability to explain either the creation of a melody or the recognition of one.

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2014,12:18   

Look out Gary/
You're getting pretty hairy/
Better let out the internet/
Science rooms you gonna get/
Busted beaters/
Psychedelic heaters/
Don' wanna be so dumb/
Better get yourself some/
Working copyrights/
Because your days are really nights . . . .

OK, so I can channel Dylan with the best of 'em.  :)  :)  :)

And my deepest sypmathies to any Dylan fans out there . . . . .  Silliness overwhelms me at times.  ;)

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2014,12:29   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 06 2014,06:22)
As it turns out information from intelligence is not the same as randomness and with all said you're arguing over nothing while science marches on with Theory of Intelligent Design I'm explaining already culturally ushered in from the days of my getting over accidentally become a "radio pirate" with the FCC having to come make me sign off that led to my talking about this sort of thing that worded it in band name and lyrics.

Let us know if you find your way out of the Thicket of Tortured English. We'll be waiting on the other side.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2014,14:14   

Quote
Culture changers love to be in on culture changing science, but they don't want to argue whether "evolutionary theory" has weaknesses or not. They more or less already spoke on where to go by describing how in the backwater something that never changes is always swirling, that in a jiffy can suck down an Institute like the DI, but they got lucky by my finding theory worth defending from their premise. That's how I have to look at it anyway, for good reason pertaining to culture change that already exists to stay in step with otherwise all the noise they asked for ends up working against them.

In my opinion what happens in places other than UD is far more important than opinions there, but to each their own. To me it just seems like screaming at each other in a closet many just as well you stay inside, so they can't hear you. What matters the most is what's happening outside, where people program models and work on all sorts of other things that keeps both science and religion going through time.

What the heck is all that supposed to mean?


 
Quote
The first sentence of the theory also took a few years to get right, in part because of absolutely needing how Genesis sums up the relationship.  
Quote
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level combine to create another (Logos, animating) level of intelligence for it to control at the next, which results in emergent self-similar entities each systematically in their own image, likeness.
So maybe in a century or three you'll have whipped it into a reasonable sentence and a decent idea.  However, until then both the concept and the sentence remain atrocious.
image, likeness   needs "or"
each / their         non-agreement
systematically      empty assertion
self-similar           empty assertion
for it to control    
at the next          I think you mean at the new level, not at the next, but worse, you have not documented the existence of multiple levels of intelligence.
level of intelligence    empty assertion, & intelligence is not defined & levels are not documented.
collective .... combine   empty assertion
another (Logos, animating) level of intelligence    awkward, and also unclear
certain features of the universe     vapid without specification



"From Theory of Intelligent Design by Gary S. Gaulin"  Needs a comma

"Conclusion

This theoretical model for explaining the origin of intelligence and the phenomenon of intelligent cause predicts that we are an intelligent design"
No, it doesn't predict that.  You claim it, but without solid grounds for doing so.

", created by three (a trinity of) emergent self-similar levels of biological intelligence, as follows:"
You haven't demonstrated the three levels, nor their self similarity.  How could molecules have biological intelligence, if such a thing existed?  You are playing sleight of hand with "trinity/Trinity".

"(1) The behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular intelligence, whereby genome-based biological systems learn over time by replication of accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive descendant offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells, and is the primary source of learned instinctual behavior."
Empty assertion in the first "causes".  How does an abstract quality self-assemble?  What exactly are intelligence and  molecular intelligence?  (If you say molecular intelligence, you are clearly not using intelligence in any of its standard uses, so define and justify your terms.)   What biological systems are not ultimately based on genomes?  Replication is not tantamount to learning: even if we buy your metaphor, errors in replication and selection or drift are needed to "learn" something new.  "Learned instincts" are an oxymoron according to standard understanding.   What does "intelligence" add to the processes of growth and division of cells that is not supplied by standard explanations?

"(2) Molecular intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular intelligence. In sexual reproduction gamete cells from a father and mother are differently expressed as a sperm cell and egg cell that must combine into one complete cellular intelligence system, as required by the first level (molecular intelligence), which must embody both halves at the same time. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment cellular responses, migration and social-cell differentiation."  You have not justified either molecular or cellular intelligence, and how does "molecular intelligence" control "our moment to moment cellular responses, migration and social-cell differentiation."  I know what "cell differentiation" consists off, but what is "social-cell differentiation" and how is intelligence involved in all this?  How is migration "controlled" by "molecular intelligence"?  Setting aside some quasi-sexual methods of reproduction in some prokaryotes, sexual reproduction starts with male and female gametes, not male and female parents (ask any hermaphroditic animal or monoecious or monoicous plant).  Fathers and mothers only happen with dioecious organisms, which is a fairly advanced form of sexual reproduction.  Again, learn basic biology before pontificating.  If sperm and egg have to combine in order to get a single complete "cellular intelligence), what happens in haploid and/or parthenogenetic organisms?  Why "required"?  Why "must embody"?

 
Quote
(3) Cellular intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular intelligence. A multicellular body is then controlled by a neural brain expressing all three levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly), and religious behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, migration and social differentiation.

"Cellular intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular intelligence": three assertions and no justification for any of them, and at this point the rest is just a house of cards.

 
Quote
The combined knowledge of all three of these intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may stay to defend their nests "till death do they part". Otherwise merciless alligators fiercely protect their well-cared-for offspring who are taught how to lure nest building birds into range by putting sticks on their head and will scurry into her mouth when in danger. For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from an eternal conscious loving "spirit" existing at another level our multicellular intelligence level cannot directly experience. It is of course possible that one or both of the parents will later lose interest in the partnership, or they may have more offspring than they can possibly take care of, or none at all, but "for better or for worse" for such intelligence anywhere in the universe, there will nonetheless be the strong love we still need and cherish to guide us, forever through generations of time...
Give up on the salmon: even in the few species that don't automatically die, most of them die and the rest bugger off immediately.  None of them defend nests after spawning.  Alligators... her is a disagreement in number (ditto their head), and father alligators eat their young happily enough, and mother alligators munch readily on other alligators' young, so alligators in general do not protect their young in general.  "For such intelligence anywhere in the universe" is another empty assertion.  Lots of organisms operate entirely without "love" in any recognizable sense: applying love and multicellular intelligence to oak trees, mushrooms, sponges, and corals and so on is nonsensical.


Way back when, you said  
Quote
The mechanism producing this emergence must here be explained as an "intelligent" phenomenon for it to be a coherent theory, hence "intelligent cause".
 The problem is that even if the emergence has to be an intelligent event for the theory to be coherent, that does not make the original event necessarily a result of intelligent causation.  Instead, it just means that your idea (not a theory) is not coherent, which we've been telling you for ages now.  In a sense, biological systems have accumulated information about how best to propagate specific lineages, but that level of information storage and even retrieval does not amount to intelligence in action according to standard definitions, and experiencing a mutation is not making a guess in any than the most metaphorical sense.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2014,14:22   

I begin to suspect that when he was a child, Gary was treated with a purchase made in error by his mother.  She thought she was buying a vaporizer to add humidity to his sick room.  Instead she bought a vapidizer and he hasn't been coherent or cogent since.
I'm guessing he must have been about 3.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2014,15:38   

A simple question for GG, vis a vis all of the trinity nonsense: Can you describe specifically how your "theory" would fail* if the religious component were removed?


* This assumes, for the sake of discussion, that the "theory" is coherent in view of the religious component.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2014,16:51   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,15:14)
Quote
Culture changers love to be in on culture changing science, but they don't want to argue whether "evolutionary theory" has weaknesses or not. They more or less already spoke on where to go by describing how in the backwater something that never changes is always swirling, that in a jiffy can suck down an Institute like the DI, but they got lucky by my finding theory worth defending from their premise. That's how I have to look at it anyway, for good reason pertaining to culture change that already exists to stay in step with otherwise all the noise they asked for ends up working against them.

In my opinion what happens in places other than UD is far more important than opinions there, but to each their own. To me it just seems like screaming at each other in a closet many just as well you stay inside, so they can't hear you. What matters the most is what's happening outside, where people program models and work on all sorts of other things that keeps both science and religion going through time.

What the heck is all that supposed to mean?

It means Gary ate the brown acid.

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2014,17:32   

Quote (stevestory @ April 07 2014,16:51)
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,15:14)
Quote
Culture changers love to be in on culture changing science, but they don't want to argue whether "evolutionary theory" has weaknesses or not. They more or less already spoke on where to go by describing how in the backwater something that never changes is always swirling, that in a jiffy can suck down an Institute like the DI, but they got lucky by my finding theory worth defending from their premise. That's how I have to look at it anyway, for good reason pertaining to culture change that already exists to stay in step with otherwise all the noise they asked for ends up working against them.

In my opinion what happens in places other than UD is far more important than opinions there, but to each their own. To me it just seems like screaming at each other in a closet many just as well you stay inside, so they can't hear you. What matters the most is what's happening outside, where people program models and work on all sorts of other things that keeps both science and religion going through time.

What the heck is all that supposed to mean?

It means Gary ate the brown acid.

No way, I took the brown acid and I'm just paradigm-shifting the model of intelligence proving the basis of molecular intelligence with integration of religion and visual basics.  

Stick that in your science-stopping pipe you educratic fascist track-foreclosing persecutor of Gary.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2014,19:57   

I mostly scan this thread once or twice a day looking for particularly addled sentences pulled out of gary's rubble by others.

Quote
They more or less already spoke on where to go by describing how in the backwater something that never changes is always swirling, that in a jiffy can suck down an Institute like the DI, but they got lucky by my finding theory worth defending from their premise.


Mr. T had something to say about that sort of thing once...

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2014,20:21   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
Quote
Culture changers love to be in on culture changing science, but they don't want to argue whether "evolutionary theory" has weaknesses or not. They more or less already spoke on where to go by describing how in the backwater something that never changes is always swirling, that in a jiffy can suck down an Institute like the DI, but they got lucky by my finding theory worth defending from their premise. That's how I have to look at it anyway, for good reason pertaining to culture change that already exists to stay in step with otherwise all the noise they asked for ends up working against them.

In my opinion what happens in places other than UD is far more important than opinions there, but to each their own. To me it just seems like screaming at each other in a closet many just as well you stay inside, so they can't hear you. What matters the most is what's happening outside, where people program models and work on all sorts of other things that keeps both science and religion going through time.

What the heck is all that supposed to mean?


See "Law of unintended consequences"


Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
Quote
The first sentence of the theory also took a few years to get right, in part because of absolutely needing how Genesis sums up the relationship.      
Quote
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level combine to create another (Logos, animating) level of intelligence for it to control at the next, which results in emergent self-similar entities each systematically in their own image, likeness.
So maybe in a century or three you'll have whipped it into a reasonable sentence and a decent idea.  However, until then both the concept and the sentence remain atrocious.
image, likeness   needs "or"


"and" would be more precise, but comma shortens without worry about which (or/and) to use.

Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)

each / their         non-agreement


I don't think you are fully comprehending what the sentence is saying. I see no other agreement that makes sense.

Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)

systematically      empty assertion


That is a vital QUALIFIER to operationally define intelligent cause in the context of Systems Biology.

Removing a necessary qualifier is not an option.

Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)

self-similar           empty assertion


Removing a necessary qualifier is not an option.

Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)

for it to control    
at the next          I think you mean at the new level, not at the next, but worse......


The word "new" implies this intelligent causation never happened anywhere else in the universe, which the theory does not. There is just the "next" level, that would always have still been there, all along, just not achieved yet.

Expecting me to suggest things that are contrary to the theory only indicates that you are still trying to change the subject to a red-herring theory that you invented, instead of the theory that actually exists.

--------------
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.

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2014,20:44   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 07 2014,20:21)
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
 
Quote
Culture changers love to be in on culture changing science, but they don't want to argue whether "evolutionary theory" has weaknesses or not. They more or less already spoke on where to go by describing how in the backwater something that never changes is always swirling, that in a jiffy can suck down an Institute like the DI, but they got lucky by my finding theory worth defending from their premise. That's how I have to look at it anyway, for good reason pertaining to culture change that already exists to stay in step with otherwise all the noise they asked for ends up working against them.

In my opinion what happens in places other than UD is far more important than opinions there, but to each their own. To me it just seems like screaming at each other in a closet many just as well you stay inside, so they can't hear you. What matters the most is what's happening outside, where people program models and work on all sorts of other things that keeps both science and religion going through time.

What the heck is all that supposed to mean?


See "Law of unintended consequences"


 
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
 
Quote
The first sentence of the theory also took a few years to get right, in part because of absolutely needing how Genesis sums up the relationship.      
Quote
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level combine to create another (Logos, animating) level of intelligence for it to control at the next, which results in emergent self-similar entities each systematically in their own image, likeness.
So maybe in a century or three you'll have whipped it into a reasonable sentence and a decent idea.  However, until then both the concept and the sentence remain atrocious.
image, likeness   needs "or"


"and" would be more precise, but comma shortens without worry about which (or/and) to use.

 
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)

each / their         non-agreement


I don't think you are fully comprehending what the sentence is saying. I see no other agreement that makes sense.

 
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)

systematically      empty assertion


That is a vital QUALIFIER to operationally define intelligent cause in the context of Systems Biology.

Removing a necessary qualifier is not an option.

 
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)

self-similar           empty assertion


Removing a necessary qualifier is not an option.

 
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)

for it to control    
at the next          I think you mean at the new level, not at the next, but worse......


The word "new" implies this intelligent causation never happened anywhere else in the universe, which the theory does not. There is just the "next" level, that would always have still been there, all along, just not achieved yet.

Expecting me to suggest things that are contrary to the theory only indicates that you are still trying to change the subject to a red-herring theory that you invented, instead of the theory that actually exists.

This is why Gary is hilarious.

1) He thinks he can change the use of grammar and punctuation so it will be shorter without turning his sentences into gibberish.

2) He never learned that there are rules about singular and plural word compatibility.

3) He thinks he's justified in claiming something because he needs it to be true.  He's totally clueless that this is bass ackwards.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2014,21:02   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 07 2014,20:21)
[/quote]
   
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
     
Quote
Culture changers love to be in on culture changing science, but they don't want to argue whether "evolutionary theory" has weaknesses or not. They more or less already spoke on where to go by describing how in the backwater something that never changes is always swirling, that in a jiffy can suck down an Institute like the DI, but they got lucky by my finding theory worth defending from their premise. That's how I have to look at it anyway, for good reason pertaining to culture change that already exists to stay in step with otherwise all the noise they asked for ends up working against them.

In my opinion what happens in places other than UD is far more important than opinions there, but to each their own. To me it just seems like screaming at each other in a closet many just as well you stay inside, so they can't hear you. What matters the most is what's happening outside, where people program models and work on all sorts of other things that keeps both science and religion going through time.

What the heck is all that supposed to mean?


See "Law of unintended consequences"

I understand all about unintended consequences.  The problem, however, is that your prose is indecipherable, so your meaning is entirely opaque.


   
Quote
     
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
     
Quote
The first sentence of the theory also took a few years to get right, in part because of absolutely needing how Genesis sums up the relationship.            
Quote
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level combine to create another (Logos, animating) level of intelligence for it to control at the next, which results in emergent self-similar entities each systematically in their own image, likeness.
So maybe in a century or three you'll have whipped it into a reasonable sentence and a decent idea.  However, until then both the concept and the sentence remain atrocious.
image, likeness   needs "or"


"and" would be more precise, but comma shortens without worry about which (or/and) to use.

Once again, only in your mind. "And" implies two separate things, which would be wrong here.  "Or", in this context, would correctly be understood as either of two synonyms, supplied for clarification.  A comma simply leaves the reader wondering what the heck is going on in your mind.  [Edited to add: although Texas Teach makes it very clear that what is going on in your mind is all too clear to everybody but you.]

   
Quote
     
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)

each / their         non-agreement


I don't think you are fully comprehending what the sentence is saying. I see no other agreement that makes sense.
 Of course I am not fully comprehending what the sentence is saying - I have to guess at what you meant because you aren't following standard and comprehensible rules of grammar.  If you want others to comprehend your ideas, you need to get the thoughts out of the tangles in your mind and into good (i.e. grammatical) English. "Each" would be matched by "its", or you could rewrite the sentence in some other way that is grammatical and conveys what you want to say.

   
Quote
     
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)

systematically      empty assertion


That is a vital QUALIFIER to operationally define intelligent cause in the context of Systems Biology.

Removing a necessary qualifier is not an option.

If it is vital then it needs to be justified and its vitality needs to be explained, because it is in no way vital to anybody other than you.

   
Quote
     
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)

self-similar           empty assertion


Removing a necessary qualifier is not an option.
Again, without backing up your claim, your assertion is hollow.  If you want to claim that something is self-similar then we need to see an equation that specifies the fractal dimension and a specification of the orders of magnitude over which it applies.  If the claim is self-evident, we could dispense with the math because everybody would be nodding in agreement.  However, with your claims of this nature, no one is seeing what appears to be obvious to you, so no one is buying a thing that you are saying, so you have to provide the math to convince people that you aren't talking rubbish.  (Although the horse long since escaped the barn on that one...)

   
Quote
     
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)

for it to control    
at the next          I think you mean at the new level, not at the next, but worse......


The word "new" implies this intelligent causation never happened anywhere else in the universe, which the theory does not. There is just the "next" level, that would always have still been there, all along, just not achieved yet.
Say what?
Also, to interpret your mangled context: "whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level [say, level A] combine to create another (Logos, animating) level [that would be level B] of intelligence for it to control at the next [i.e., level C, except that you meant to refer to level B again]."  You're clueless.

   
Quote
Expecting me to suggest things that are contrary to the theory only indicates that you are still trying to change the subject to a red-herring theory that you invented, instead of the theory that actually exists.
 All I was trying to get you to do in that post was to write your ideas in clear and grammatical English so that people can understand what the heck you are trying to say.  

I am confident that once you do this it be even more clear than it already is that you are stuffed to overflowing with B.S., but I do so love a gilded lily.

Also, your ideas do not rise to the level of a theory.  Heck, they don't even rise to the level of being coherent.

Furthermore, whatever happened to your promise to stop talking to me because I don't study hippocampi?  Your failure to keep your promises is disheartening, to say the least.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2014,22:23   

Offer a better wording that does not leave out required qualifiers including "image" and "likeness" otherwise I have to stay with what I now have for a first sentence.

Even though (to some) the grammar agreement seems wrong that's the way it is where "trinity" of science and religion exists in a sentence. At that point it's to early to mention the trinity from multiple intelligent causation events, otherwise gets wrongly operationally defined as more than one event, but it's there causing the sentence to seem out of place to those who are new to the concept of "Trinity".

Genesis scripture/theory ends up operationally defining our creator in plural form, where singular is expected, which can at first seem wrong but that's what I ended up having to explain for scientific theory.

There is no real grammar agreement problem. That's simply the way it is, in modern religion too.

You're only wasting your time and mine, trying to make it appear that what many in theology and elsewhere would expect to happen to sentence structure by properly scientifically operationally defining the "intelligent cause" part of the process.

There is also the challenge for all from Planet Source Code and other things that cannot be argued away, which are now done and in the past. Arguing semantics will not make that go away.

--------------
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.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2014,02:16   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 07 2014,22:23)
Offer a better wording that does not leave out required qualifiers including "image" and "likeness" otherwise I have to stay with what I now have for a first sentence.

Even though (to some) the grammar agreement seems wrong that's the way it is where "trinity" of science and religion exists in a sentence. At that point it's to early to mention the trinity from multiple intelligent causation events, otherwise gets wrongly operationally defined as more than one event, but it's there causing the sentence to seem out of place to those who are new to the concept of "Trinity".

Genesis scripture/theory ends up operationally defining our creator in plural form, where singular is expected, which can at first seem wrong but that's what I ended up having to explain for scientific theory.

There is no real grammar agreement problem. That's simply the way it is, in modern religion too.

You're only wasting your time and mine, trying to make it appear that what many in theology and elsewhere would expect to happen to sentence structure by properly scientifically operationally defining the "intelligent cause" part of the process.

There is also the challenge for all from Planet Source Code and other things that cannot be argued away, which are now done and in the past. Arguing semantics will not make that go away.

1) Already did, and who said you had to leave out either word?  Just add "or".    
"... each in its own image or likeness."
(Also, it's your responsibility to write your ideas clearly, not anybody else's.)

2) To everyone (but you, and you're wrong) the grammar is wrong.  It has to be, "each in its own...".   

Also, that's "too early" in your comment.  Your whole trinity argument is irrelevant at this point, so why worry about it here?  (And it's playing sleight of hand with words later.)

The reader can only process what you have written according to accepted rules of grammar and standard definitions, not according to what you are thinking and not mentioning.

3) (All the rest of your last round of comments.)  BS, and your last three sentences don't make sense.  Your writing is truly crappy, and cannot be followed without a lot of guessing about your intentions, which means that you are effectively NEVER getting your point across.  This isn't semantics or me disagreeing with you about science or you being clever about theology - this is just you not knowing how to write a comprehensible sentence.

As Texas Teach said, you can be completely bass-ackward about logic:  
Quote
The mechanism producing this emergence must here be explained as an "intelligent" phenomenon for it to be a coherent theory, hence "intelligent cause".
The extremely simple alternative explanation is eluding you.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2014,11:08   

Something for GG to aspire to:



--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
  18634 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (622) < ... 330 331 332 333 334 [335] 336 337 338 339 340 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]