RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 360 361 362 363 364 [365] 366 367 368 369 370 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11172
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2014,12:30   

I think Gary needs this thread because it memorializes that he has interacted with people who "get" and "do" science.



Deleting it would be funny.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
NoName



Posts: 2725
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2014,12:55   

He would get off on the 'persecution' even more.  So far he has no real evidence of any sort of persecution -- only delusions.  But ban him or delete 'his' thread and he'll finally have achieved his long-sought after evidence of repression by the science community.

I think we do better by continuing to point out that on the grounds of his own "theory" he is either getting exactly the results he wants or else he does not qualify as 'intelligent'.
That surely grinds him no end, particularly because he has no possible counter to it.  It's a direct entailment of the clearest part of his gibberish.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1216
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2014,12:56   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 01 2014,17:37)
This bears repeating, to help build the drama of what is to come that goes into all the above, in less than 300 pages, like it takes in this forum.

#YesCompleteGibberish

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3226
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2014,13:50   

I'm beginning to suspect that maybe this Gary Gaulin guy isn't as smart as he thinks he is...

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1949
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2014,15:41   

Quote (fnxtr @ June 01 2014,13:50)
I'm beginning to suspect that maybe this Gary Gaulin guy isn't as smart as he thinks he is...

Since Gary thinks he's a genius, that doesn't mean as much as it might.

I'm beginning to suspect Gary isn't as smart as we think he is (a bar whose height is shrinking daily).

--------------
"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

  
Nomad



Posts: 311
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2014,19:37   

Gary, I've got a question for you.  What would happen to your modeled organism if you short circuited the confidence circuit so that no matter what it did, it thought it had made the best possible choice?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2014,12:14   

And to not keep you in any more suspense, here's how it went in a thread at the {drum roll} NCSE, found linked to from here:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science....6241723

Sometimes I have to break free from the confines of this thread. Get out and meet other people. Thank you, thank you..

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11172
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2014,12:23   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 02 2014,12:14)
And to not keep you in any more suspense, here's how it went in a thread at the {drum roll} NCSE, found linked to from here:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science....6241723

Sometimes I have to break free from the confines of this thread. Get out and meet other people. Thank you, thank you..

You're such a drama queen / attention whore. Pathetic.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
NoName



Posts: 2725
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2014,12:24   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 02 2014,13:14)
And to not keep you in any more suspense, here's how it went in a thread at the {drum roll} NCSE, found linked to from here:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science....6241723

Sometimes I have to break free from the confines of this thread. Get out and meet other people. Thank you, thank you..

And yet the only portions of the discussion you were involved in were a replay of what's been said and done here.
No admiration generated for you or your 'ideas'.
No new insights generated or presented.

Same old, same old, just as it ever was.

If you think this counts as some sort of success, you are even stupider than we believe.  Which puts you perilously close to the world's first negative IQ score.

But it was definitely LOL-worthy seeing you repeat your assertion that "I mailed it to them and they didn't tell me to stop so they must have approved" nonsense.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2014,12:50   

The NCSE thread is here, where the new editor for Reports for the National Center for Science Education, Stephanie Keep, was introducing herself.  GG burst upon the scene with a link to his nonsense, asking Ms. Keep "I'm wondering whether you believe this is a testable scientific theory or "God in the gaps" religion"

Predictably, there was no response.  There was response from a few other commenters, however, and it went along the usual lines.  No hint of support, only people telling GG what we've been telling him for the past 300+ pages.  

GG gets ignored or ridiculed wherever he goes.

ETA: Gary can now say that Ms. Keep has no problem with his "theory."

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

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2014,13:08   

In the NCSE thread, GG alludes to "...46+ pages of information that includes origin of life experiments and award winning computer models"

Gary doesn't know how an experiment differs from a demonstration (no surprise there) and still insists on referring to his programs as "models," although he's never been able to describe the biological analogs being modeled and thus loses his claim to having created models.  

All science so far.

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

  
NoName



Posts: 2725
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2014,13:13   

He remains equally clueless that without any grounding in facts and evidence, his software can demonstrate nothing about the world of facts.  It has no evidential standing.
Gary would prefer to operate in the mode where Space Invaders is evidence of alien lifeforms who invade using triangular spaceships.
IOW, an even stupider mode than  Behe's expansion of science to include astrology.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2014,13:45   

Gary's reference to his programming as "award winning computer models" is at best disingenuous because the award, such as it is, was for programming and not the "model" itself.  There is no evidence that anyone at PSC is qualified to evaluate the "theory" behind the "model," let alone that the "model" is worthwhile.  This is a distinction that's likely to be lost on GG.  

It brings to mind something from management guru Peter Drucker: "There is nothing quite so useless as doing with great efficiency something that should not be done at all."

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 12136
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2014,17:19   

Is a group of scientists trying to steal the essence of Gary's work and pretend it's their own??!?!?!

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2014,17:58   

Quote (stevestory @ June 02 2014,17:19)
Is a group of scientists trying to steal the essence of Gary's work and pretend it's their own??!?!?!

That's not real-science.  Where is their Trehub-cognitive circuit that has hippocampi and the trinity from molecular intelligence on up to whatever the really-high level is that forms the basis for 46-pages of theory that is doing well at the K-12 level has won awards and even acclaimed scientists have no problem with it unlike the pathetic bullies of academia who have shut-out real-science like as done by self-taught people who have the right-answers but keep getting ignored and oh no I just shit-myself.

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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2014,18:43   

Heck, forget about scientists - the inflight shopping catalog on a flight that I took today offered a "motorized replica" of R2D2 which "responds to voice commands, navigates rooms and hallways, ....  R2 obeys more than 40 voice commands and he plays games like tag.  ....  R2 can also replay sounds and dialog from Star Wars movies, answer yes-and-no questions, and dance while playing the famed cantina music."  It's for ages 8 and up so it meets Gary's K-12 standard.  No mention of Gary, no weird claims about molecular intelligence or "real-science", no assertions about disproofs of natural selection, no uninterpretable English.  

Gary, your work is inferior to a toy, and your "science" is worse than useless.  Not surprisingly, your promise of something new to "weird [me] out really really good" that is supposedly going very well has turned out to be less than zero, just a new round of assertions of your same tired old crap in a new venue.  Give it up and go do something useful.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2014,22:27   

Song simply about being human, so good, it has over 23 million views already.

Christina Perri - Human [Official 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.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4937
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2014,22:38   

Stuff from the Smithsonian site:

 
Quote

Gary Gaulin • 11 days ago

According to the theory that I have been working on for over 20 years the first multicellular “animal intelligence” developed (currently estimated) a little over 500 million years ago. Earthworms are also considered animals. In comparison to humans the brainpower of the first intelligent animals might not be very impressive, but they still meet all four requirements of the cognitive circuit described by cognitive science (per Arnold Trehub for human intelligence) and robotics (per David Heiserman for machine intelligence). It's the most scientific way I know to operationally define and qualify "intelligence".

A pdf of the entire theory (and brief intro with illustration for the origin of intelligence) is at:

http://theoryofid.blogspot.com.../.....co.....com...

The origin of intelligence is my favorite topic. I would be happy to answer any scientific questions you might have.


 
Quote

   Wesley Elsberry Gary Gaulin • a day ago

   Gary already has 300+ pages of "answering" questions on record, not counting other places he's trotted his screed out. See http://tinyurl.com/p7ye4n8....p7ye4n8

   Check it out for how Gary responds to anything other than instant adulation. (The start of that can be seen happening once again here.)

   Synopsis: Gary's code doesn't implement any of Arnold Trehub's actual neural models, nor does Gary's code implement anything beyond a simulation premised on David Heiserman's "beta"-class robot, though Gary's text relies on Heiserman's use of "educated guess" ("good guess" in Gaulinese) that Heiserman reserved for his "gamma"-class robots, a long step beyond what Gary so far publicly offers code for. In response to criticism, Gary will, on past form, denigrate any critic's credentials (though Gary has not much himself so far as I know); claim that critics must be dissing the sources Gary cites rather than Gary's bizarre mash-up of them; thoroughly misunderstand and misrepresent sources (including ones he himself cites); bizarrely claim that unless someone can offer something better for establishing the result he wishes his code and text might establish, his work thus is supported; pretend that his code is biologically plausible for things it can't possibly be considered to approach in any biologically plausible manner; and project every fault he has onto his interlocutors.

   The origin of intelligence may be Gary's favorite topic, but I think it's far less likely that anyone else is going to have "listening to Gary go on about the origin of intelligence" be one of their favorite things. In order to bypass evolutionary hypotheses, it looks to me that Gary seeks to establish intelligent action at logically prior, lower levels, those of molecules and cells. In my experience, any data that does not accord with this idee fixe' is relentlessly rejected or disputed by Gary. Gary certainly has shown no compunction in dismissing relevant work on the evolution of intelligence.

   Do be careful, though; Gary did note that he consulted with a Discovery Institute lawyer prior to engaging the "After the Bar Closes" forum to figure out when to sue someone in online discussion. See http://tinyurl.com/pnjnj5x....pnjnj5x


 
Quote

       Gary Gaulin Wesley Elsberry • a day ago

       Wesley never fails to oversell the drama, that's now at this point in the long discussion:

       http://www.antievolution.org/c...

       I am on friendly terms with Casey Luskin, which makes some paranoid but our conversation was for advice in regards to theory where when all is going right the science is way more powerful than any court case could ever be. He only had to in his words explain why he agreed that legal means are self-defeating, for me to have a weight lifted from my shoulders by knowing just that. I was then able to stay focused on the computer models and other things that makes the theory happen and went to Panda's Thumb After the Bar Closes forum Wesley nervously rules, which now has 365 pages of science mayhem they have to do something about.

       My having to credit Casey for genuine help that didn't need any legal papers filled out makes it so he does not have to worry about being seen as useless to their own theory sort of thing. There being no real conflict between us is a good thing when it's more or less their theory too and better for them to be OK with how things are going, than not. Smithsonian Magazine then has much less to worry about from Casey Luskin, not more.


Quote

           Wesley Elsberry Gary Gaulin • a day ago

           Like I said, an abundance of caution is a good thing. Gary has other quite clear statements about his litigation fishing, such as:

             
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.

           [End quote -- http://tinyurl.com/m2wpb6g....m2wpb6g ]


           You will notice that Gary avoids and evades any discussion of the wide gap between what his code implements, and what he claims it signifies. This is also consistent with his months-long interaction at AtBC.


 
Quote

               Gary Gaulin Wesley Elsberry • a day ago

               Wesley, you can now stop demonstrating your continually dwelling on legal issues and all else besides science. Already did a good job showing what I'm actually up against.

               Discussion in your forum perpetually goes in circles back to the same old nonscience.


 
Quote


                   Wesley Elsberry Gary Gaulin • a day ago

                   Uh, Gary, I actually discussed exactly what your code implements of Trehub (no neural models whatsoever) and Heiserman (stops short of the level of complexity needed for making "educated guesses" in Heiserman's parlance), and you had no answer for that, and apparently wish to tell people falsehoods about my participation here. That's bizarre, given that they can look up the page and see that your characterization is false. By all means, let's discuss what is in Trehub and Heiserman that is inexplicably missing from your code and contradicted in your text. I already made a start on that topic here, contrary to your claim.

                   So far in response to me Gary has made false statements about his documented talk of desire to bring a lawsuit against someone and also a false assertion that I've only discussed Gary's well-documented litigious statements. That's not a very promising start here on his part, is it?


 
Quote

                       Gary Gaulin Wesley Elsberry • 11 hours ago

                       I first explain that the David Heiserman (one of three where Beta most simply produces intelligence) only needed a RAM chip for storing its memories in. When computer modeling as in the ID Labs an array is dimensioned for an addressable RAM memory, in their PC. The circuit is most simply shown as:

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

                       Then I explain that Arnold Trehub shows the same systematics for a human brain in an illustration in their book:

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

                       Arnold Trehub, "The Cognitive Brain", MIT Press 1991, Chapter 9, Page 158, Fig 9.3
                       http://people.umass.edu/trehub...
                       http://people.umass.edu/trehub...

                       I then explain the purpose of the model is to keep things Occam's Razor reduced as possible, and just in code dimension an array, not write a whole other program that models neurons that connect together to do the same thing anyway, store memories.

                       At this point you would figure they already got it. The model keeps things as simple as possible, period. There is no need to add all kinds of other code and all else the forum can think of that soon has me needing to build a well educated robot to get a beer from the fridge for them.

                       A lively debate to welcome Stephanie Keep as new science editor has just ended at the NCSE website. It sums up a large number of things. It has a little music to help lighten things up, with a quick once through the usual challenges that stopped at the point where dizzying redundancy begins. With all else considered it's hard for her to beat a welcome like this, in a place like that, from everyone:

                       http://ncse.com/blog/2014/05/n...

                       I feel good about having attended what became for me like a week long science party, where I only had to bring the Theory of Intelligent Design. The entertainment on its own automatically follows. Its tread grew until thoughts were being scattered by new material forming in between, then became best to not mess it up with clutter and let the readers decide from that.

                       Stephanie can jump in anywhere, or not. Either way I'm happy with how things went and would rather have the adversaries I did end end up with, than for me to be there by myself not really knowing what to say. As it turned out the zingers that followed the science video on weird stories behind all great theories were then like part of the act to make sure we have the best yet.

                       The NCSE thread is a good example of what I was describing by saying when all is going right the science itself is way more powerful than legal court actions. What matters is that science experts who know the theory and I are the first in on a novel grid cell model and other ideas for AI that's worth the read, know about. The reviewers at Planet Source Code rated the model all the way to awesomeness. Turning my discussion with Casey into a major issue is another something I get dragged into that can go on and on for weeks, I should not be expected to get ground down by.


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4937
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2014,22:46   

More from the Smithsonian site:

Quote

Gary Gaulin CdnMacAtheist • 6 days ago

CdnMacAtheist said: "Do you suppose that various fundamentalist sects of the Christian cult wouldn't take the nation back to those days if they could, just like Islamism has & does in other places?"

History has already shown that where given the opportunity the Atheist religion will impose their religious beliefs on others, and to the detriment of science (i.e. suppression of science by Joseph Stalin).

The only thing you are saying is that in many ways you are no different from those you are now pointing your finger at.


Quote


   Wesley Elsberry Gary Gaulin • 3 days ago

   "Intelligent design" advocates have a history of misusing the Lysenko affair. I have an essay with a co-author, Dr. Mark Perakh, who lived through that episode and fought Nazis in WW2 to boot: http://www.talkreason.org/perakm.....ndp.htm



--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4937
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2014,23:00   

From the NCSE thread:

Quote

Gary Gaulin • 5 days ago

Hi Stephanie.

I'm wondering whether you believe this is a testable scientific theory or "God in the gaps" religion:

http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

Wishing you luck!

Quote

   Wesley Elsberry Gary Gaulin • 9 hours ago

   It's incoherent, self-contradictory word salad. See http://tinyurl.com/p7ye4n8....p7ye4n8

   I responded to a similar entry by Gary at a Smithsonian online article:

   Check it out for how Gary responds to anything other than instant adulation. (The start of that can be seen happening once again here.)

   Synopsis: Gary's code doesn't implement any of Arnold Trehub's actual neural models, nor does Gary's code implement anything beyond a simulation premised on David Heiserman's "beta"-class robot, though Gary's text relies on Heiserman's use of "educated guess" ("good guess" in Gaulinese) that Heiserman reserved for his "gamma"-class robots, a long step beyond what Gary so far publicly offers code for. In response to criticism, Gary will, on past form, denigrate any critic's credentials (though Gary has not much himself so far as I know); claim that critics must be dissing the sources Gary cites rather than Gary's bizarre mash-up of them; thoroughly misunderstand and misrepresent sources (including ones he himself cites); bizarrely claim that unless someone can offer something better for establishing the result he wishes his code and text might establish, his work thus is supported; pretend that his code is biologically plausible for things it can't possibly be considered to approach in any biologically plausible manner; and project every fault he has onto his interlocutors.

   The origin of intelligence may be Gary's favorite topic, but I think it's far less likely that anyone else is going to have "listening to Gary go on about the origin of intelligence" be one of their favorite things. In order to bypass evolutionary hypotheses, it looks to me that Gary seeks to establish intelligent action at logically prior, lower levels, those of molecules and cells. In my experience, any data that does not accord with this idee fixe' is relentlessly rejected or disputed by Gary. Gary certainly has shown no compunction in dismissing relevant work on the evolution of intelligence.

   Do be careful, though; Gary did note that he consulted with a Discovery Institute lawyer [Casey Luskin] prior to engaging the "After the Bar Closes" forum to figure out when to sue someone in online discussion. See http://tinyurl.com/pnjnj5x....pnjnj5x

Quote

       Gary Gaulin Wesley Elsberry • 7 hours ago

       Hi again Wesley. Hopefully you're done giving your forum shameless plugs. Yes I mentioned additional information being in this thread in the Smithsonian Institution thread but that was your fault for making me need to link here after that. I now need a direct link back, for readers to see what you're trying to talk about:

       http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...

       For "interlocutors" the best conspiracy theory I can come up with is Rev Theory as per KCFS forum lore the black hole sun producing (& toes in the sand) "Lucky Lady" is stealthy Kathy Martin whose talent for giving the press exactly what they wanted caused legendary hoopla that got folks talking science now here we are with the angel story being continued, but I don't know where. It's as though the video is tempting to rev up some theory by leaving a key around for anyone to try out. It must make no sense to you but Stephanie might still get it:

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Quote

           Wesley Elsberry Gary Gaulin • 22 minutes ago

           I appreciate Gary following up to make clear to everyone that my statements are right on the money. Gary's response to my description of his screed as incoherent word salad is, predictably, more incoherent word salad.

           And even where Gary manages to make brief contact with coherency, his accusation that I am "spamming", he confirms my statement:

           "and project every fault [Gary] has onto his interlocutors."

           It's particularly amusing as Gary's initial forays both here and at the Smithsonian site immediately link to the PDF of his screed. Here, Gary seemed particularly strained in coming up with an excuse to put in his link. It does demonstrate that Gary's accusations about others are the clearest window into his own soul.

           For myself, I'm not particular about what archive of interaction informs the reader. If Gary has over 3000 posts at some other site, he need merely let me know where that might be, and I'll certainly add it as a resource for those who are new to Gary's ... creative ... approach to communication.



--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 11172
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2014,23:51   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 02 2014,23:00)
From the NCSE thread:

 
Quote

Gary Gaulin • 5 days ago

Hi Stephanie.

I'm wondering whether you believe this is a testable scientific theory or "God in the gaps" religion:

http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

Wishing you luck!

 
Quote

   Wesley Elsberry Gary Gaulin • 9 hours ago

   It's incoherent, self-contradictory word salad. See http://tinyurl.com/p7ye4n8....p7ye4n8

   I responded to a similar entry by Gary at a Smithsonian online article:

   Check it out for how Gary responds to anything other than instant adulation. (The start of that can be seen happening once again here.)

   Synopsis: Gary's code doesn't implement any of Arnold Trehub's actual neural models, nor does Gary's code implement anything beyond a simulation premised on David Heiserman's "beta"-class robot, though Gary's text relies on Heiserman's use of "educated guess" ("good guess" in Gaulinese) that Heiserman reserved for his "gamma"-class robots, a long step beyond what Gary so far publicly offers code for. In response to criticism, Gary will, on past form, denigrate any critic's credentials (though Gary has not much himself so far as I know); claim that critics must be dissing the sources Gary cites rather than Gary's bizarre mash-up of them; thoroughly misunderstand and misrepresent sources (including ones he himself cites); bizarrely claim that unless someone can offer something better for establishing the result he wishes his code and text might establish, his work thus is supported; pretend that his code is biologically plausible for things it can't possibly be considered to approach in any biologically plausible manner; and project every fault he has onto his interlocutors.

   The origin of intelligence may be Gary's favorite topic, but I think it's far less likely that anyone else is going to have "listening to Gary go on about the origin of intelligence" be one of their favorite things. In order to bypass evolutionary hypotheses, it looks to me that Gary seeks to establish intelligent action at logically prior, lower levels, those of molecules and cells. In my experience, any data that does not accord with this idee fixe' is relentlessly rejected or disputed by Gary. Gary certainly has shown no compunction in dismissing relevant work on the evolution of intelligence.

   Do be careful, though; Gary did note that he consulted with a Discovery Institute lawyer [Casey Luskin] prior to engaging the "After the Bar Closes" forum to figure out when to sue someone in online discussion. See http://tinyurl.com/pnjnj5x....pnjnj5x

 
Quote

       Gary Gaulin Wesley Elsberry • 7 hours ago

       Hi again Wesley. Hopefully you're done giving your forum shameless plugs. Yes I mentioned additional information being in this thread in the Smithsonian Institution thread but that was your fault for making me need to link here after that. I now need a direct link back, for readers to see what you're trying to talk about:

       http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...

       For "interlocutors" the best conspiracy theory I can come up with is Rev Theory as per KCFS forum lore the black hole sun producing (& toes in the sand) "Lucky Lady" is stealthy Kathy Martin whose talent for giving the press exactly what they wanted caused legendary hoopla that got folks talking science now here we are with the angel story being continued, but I don't know where. It's as though the video is tempting to rev up some theory by leaving a key around for anyone to try out. It must make no sense to you but Stephanie might still get it:

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

 
Quote

           Wesley Elsberry Gary Gaulin • 22 minutes ago

           I appreciate Gary following up to make clear to everyone that my statements are right on the money. Gary's response to my description of his screed as incoherent word salad is, predictably, more incoherent word salad.

           And even where Gary manages to make brief contact with coherency, his accusation that I am "spamming", he confirms my statement:

           "and project every fault [Gary] has onto his interlocutors."

           It's particularly amusing as Gary's initial forays both here and at the Smithsonian site immediately link to the PDF of his screed. Here, Gary seemed particularly strained in coming up with an excuse to put in his link. It does demonstrate that Gary's accusations about others are the clearest window into his own soul.

           For myself, I'm not particular about what archive of interaction informs the reader. If Gary has over 3000 posts at some other site, he need merely let me know where that might be, and I'll certainly add it as a resource for those who are new to Gary's ... creative ... approach to communication.


PotW

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
stevestory



Posts: 12136
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2014,11:09   

Quote
I was then able to stay focused on the computer models and other things that makes the theory happen and went to Panda's Thumb After the Bar Closes forum Wesley nervously rules, which now has 365 pages of science mayhem they have to do something about.


Wes, if you need help with all the anxiety Gary has caused you, I can get you 500 ml Xanax tabs for $10 a piece, No Questions Asked....

   
fnxtr



Posts: 3226
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2014,11:21   

Quote (stevestory @ June 03 2014,09:09)
Quote
I was then able to stay focused on the computer models and other things that makes the theory happen and went to Panda's Thumb After the Bar Closes forum Wesley nervously rules, which now has 365 pages of science mayhem they have to do something about.


Wes, if you need help with all the anxiety Gary has caused you, I can get you 500 ml Xanax tabs for $10 a piece, No Questions Asked....

Riiight. In the same way I have to "do something about" what's in our cat's litter box.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
NoName



Posts: 2725
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2014,11:23   

I'd suggest that Gary is in need of drugs, but evidence suggests that he's overstocked and over consuming.
Perhaps a drying out period would help.
Gods forbid this is his base state!

  
stevestory



Posts: 12136
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2014,12:34   

i meant mg. A 500 ml Xanax would cost more than $10, that's for sure.....

   
JohnW



Posts: 3215
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2014,12:49   

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 02 2014,21:51)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 02 2014,23:00)
From the NCSE thread:

 
Quote

Gary Gaulin • 5 days ago

Hi Stephanie.

I'm wondering whether you believe this is a testable scientific theory or "God in the gaps" religion:

http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

Wishing you luck!

 
Quote

   Wesley Elsberry Gary Gaulin • 9 hours ago

   It's incoherent, self-contradictory word salad. See http://tinyurl.com/p7ye4n8....p7ye4n8

   I responded to a similar entry by Gary at a Smithsonian online article:

   Check it out for how Gary responds to anything other than instant adulation. (The start of that can be seen happening once again here.)

   Synopsis: Gary's code doesn't implement any of Arnold Trehub's actual neural models, nor does Gary's code implement anything beyond a simulation premised on David Heiserman's "beta"-class robot, though Gary's text relies on Heiserman's use of "educated guess" ("good guess" in Gaulinese) that Heiserman reserved for his "gamma"-class robots, a long step beyond what Gary so far publicly offers code for. In response to criticism, Gary will, on past form, denigrate any critic's credentials (though Gary has not much himself so far as I know); claim that critics must be dissing the sources Gary cites rather than Gary's bizarre mash-up of them; thoroughly misunderstand and misrepresent sources (including ones he himself cites); bizarrely claim that unless someone can offer something better for establishing the result he wishes his code and text might establish, his work thus is supported; pretend that his code is biologically plausible for things it can't possibly be considered to approach in any biologically plausible manner; and project every fault he has onto his interlocutors.

   The origin of intelligence may be Gary's favorite topic, but I think it's far less likely that anyone else is going to have "listening to Gary go on about the origin of intelligence" be one of their favorite things. In order to bypass evolutionary hypotheses, it looks to me that Gary seeks to establish intelligent action at logically prior, lower levels, those of molecules and cells. In my experience, any data that does not accord with this idee fixe' is relentlessly rejected or disputed by Gary. Gary certainly has shown no compunction in dismissing relevant work on the evolution of intelligence.

   Do be careful, though; Gary did note that he consulted with a Discovery Institute lawyer [Casey Luskin] prior to engaging the "After the Bar Closes" forum to figure out when to sue someone in online discussion. See http://tinyurl.com/pnjnj5x....pnjnj5x

 
Quote

       Gary Gaulin Wesley Elsberry • 7 hours ago

       Hi again Wesley. Hopefully you're done giving your forum shameless plugs. Yes I mentioned additional information being in this thread in the Smithsonian Institution thread but that was your fault for making me need to link here after that. I now need a direct link back, for readers to see what you're trying to talk about:

       http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...

       For "interlocutors" the best conspiracy theory I can come up with is Rev Theory as per KCFS forum lore the black hole sun producing (& toes in the sand) "Lucky Lady" is stealthy Kathy Martin whose talent for giving the press exactly what they wanted caused legendary hoopla that got folks talking science now here we are with the angel story being continued, but I don't know where. It's as though the video is tempting to rev up some theory by leaving a key around for anyone to try out. It must make no sense to you but Stephanie might still get it:

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

 
Quote

           Wesley Elsberry Gary Gaulin • 22 minutes ago

           I appreciate Gary following up to make clear to everyone that my statements are right on the money. Gary's response to my description of his screed as incoherent word salad is, predictably, more incoherent word salad.

           And even where Gary manages to make brief contact with coherency, his accusation that I am "spamming", he confirms my statement:

           "and project every fault [Gary] has onto his interlocutors."

           It's particularly amusing as Gary's initial forays both here and at the Smithsonian site immediately link to the PDF of his screed. Here, Gary seemed particularly strained in coming up with an excuse to put in his link. It does demonstrate that Gary's accusations about others are the clearest window into his own soul.

           For myself, I'm not particular about what archive of interaction informs the reader. If Gary has over 3000 posts at some other site, he need merely let me know where that might be, and I'll certainly add it as a resource for those who are new to Gary's ... creative ... approach to communication.


PotW

Quote
For "interlocutors" the best conspiracy theory I can come up with is Rev Theory as per KCFS forum lore the black hole sun producing (& toes in the sand) "Lucky Lady" is stealthy Kathy Martin whose talent for giving the press exactly what they wanted caused legendary hoopla that got folks talking science now here we are with the angel story being continued, but I don't know where.

Sentence of the week.

I'm still very ambivalent about participating in this thread.  By doing so, I'm helping to deprive a street corner of its loony.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
stevestory



Posts: 12136
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2014,13:11   

I'll be happy to award that Sentence of the Week, but first we'll need to find a group of Theoretical Grammarians who can translate it into Standard American English.

   
NoName



Posts: 2725
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2014,13:35   

It would still be appallingly anti-semantic.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2014,17:45   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 02 2014,22:38)
Stuff from the Smithsonian site:

I started off with a short and simple comment with useful information to go with an article that was attempting to scientifically explain the origin of "animal intelligence".  

Quote
Gary Gaulin • 11 days ago
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science....0751308

According to the theory that I have been working on for over 20 years the first multicellular “animal intelligence” developed (currently estimated) a little over 500 million years ago. Earthworms are also considered animals. In comparison to humans the brainpower of the first intelligent animals might not be very impressive, but they still meet all four requirements of the cognitive circuit described by cognitive science (per Arnold Trehub for human intelligence) and robotics (per David Heiserman for machine intelligence). It's the most scientific way I know to operationally define and qualify "intelligence".

A pdf of the entire theory (and brief intro with illustration for the origin of intelligence) is at:

http://theoryofid.blogspot.com.../.....com...

The origin of intelligence is my favorite topic. I would be happy to answer any scientific questions you might have.


Days went by without incident. CdnMacAtheist was apparently oblivious to what is at the link, while OK with what I stated. Eventually the religious conflict happening below it dragged me in, which required saying something that might sound a little familiar to ones who read this forum:

Quote
Gary Gaulin  CdnMacAtheist • 8 days ago
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science....4644418

I have been trying to avoid getting into a religious debate, but I have this I need to add to the discussion:

Science explains how things work by following evidence that can be tested with a repeatable experiment, to wherever the evidence leads. What is discovered after following the what causes what trail of evidence is something we will all discover “when we get there”. Until then each of us has our own belief/expectations as to what “created” us, even where you believe we were created by “just chemical reactions”.

Arguing over whose expectations are natural and whose are supernatural is a waste of time spent arguing in endless philosophical circles. We should not be slowing down our scientific progress towards the knowledge that ultimately answers our biggest of questions.

We now know what created us works through cells, genomes, DNA, RNA, molecules, behavior of matter and energy, etc.. How consciousness and other things work are additional big questions in need of answers, which are required to answer even bigger questions such as whether afterlife exists. If that is true then we can from there possibly keep following the evidence to wherever it leads in order to explain how the afterlife works.

We should not be arguing over religion. All of us must focus on the scientific challenges that will allow us to “get there”, together.


Right after that came the chaos, with CdnMacAtheist sounding the alarm by stating right below it "Warning - just an 'Intelligent Design' IDea, as seen by another mind-dulled IDiot."

By that time most already took a look at the link, and had time to go over the theory. Whatever resulted in comments from my second reply kept the discussion going so it doesn't get boring to readers who already know the science part. It was then not a disruption that derails discussion by bombarding it with religious issues, which are all (at least supposed to be) irrelevant in an entirely scientific discussion. Science comes first, how all take it religiously (even you) is just something that happens after that. Get used to origins related science being that way, or else go crazy trying to fight it.

My discussion with Casey very honestly concluded that a libel or similar suit for what happens to me in the forums is so personally time consuming and hard to win (especially when yanking my chain is what some call science fun after a long day at the lab and in the mood to zing someone) it's a bad idea to begin with. I sensed he would not even take such a case, no matter how many hundreds of hours I spent carefully documenting everything. That was actually good news for me because I did not want to get bogged down by that, needed advice to make it so neither one of us ever wants to. The result of that helped hone my internet survival skills into what you see right now, where you can only help make what's supposed to be a weird story even weirder.

What matters to science is what you have to give that better scientifically qualifies "animal intelligence" and related processes. I quickly stated my methodology in the first reply at the Smithsonian website.

I'm in no need going past the most simplest of cognitive flow charts and robot circuits that reduce down to the same, which do in fact work extremely well for such a simple process. If you want to program one that uses virtual neurons then that's fine by me, good luck. My purpose is to keep it RAM chip simple, not confuse everyone with a big giant program to try wading through that all boils down to doing the same thing anyway.

What I added is based on the most basic of basics found in machine intelligence related cognitive science, which should not be having doubt cast on them with irrelevant arguments that do not help explain how to most precisely qualify/detect intelligence as the article is attempting to do. I thought it was a valiant attempt. My first reply genuinely needed to be there, to help their search along. It's topical, useful, even though you have reasons to believe it is not. The mayhem came later, after the title of the theory was discovered by science defenders who only need that for everything to change. That helps show what's really going on, where what comes later only goes to show why it's not right for a person to have to die broke from constant attack of my work with no help at all from those are supposed to care about science progress stopping by preaching what can't be done so all never even try.

Regardless of your other issues I added something useful to discussion at the Smithsonian. That includes info via email to answer my question maybe worth a video to them for what an infrasonic giraffe call sounds like. I linked to the Texas university exhibit, and other places found during earlier arguments. It was easy enough to gather up the earlier info, for a brief email that gives them what I have for info and ideas, which in turn makes all the earlier work something not wasted by being lost mixed into pages of info and videos to sort out, in this thread. I got the idea out, to where such a question is most valuable. It's again just science already there, where in this case they don't even say where the question came from, just visit museum and/or zoo in search of an answer. The earlier discussion that led to it being noticeable a video for that was needed is now "in science" and can now just wait to see what happens from that, then go from there, not try to do all that on my own or get stuck expected to by NoName and others demanding details none even fully know yet. As far as this thread is concerned the giraffe and elephant issues are now over. It's now wait and see what happens, if anything. In any event it's something useful that found the right place for it. The theory that lead to such a question needing a better answer is not a relevant issue.

The only way to beat what was said at the Smithsonian website is for you to be more useful to them than I was by introducing to David Heiserman and Arnold Trehub type basics to help things along. What later came from CdnMacAtheist and others should not even matter, at all.

--------------
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: June 03 2014,18:00   

Quote (stevestory @ June 03 2014,12:34)
i meant mg. A 500 ml Xanax would cost more than $10, that's for sure.....

No, no. Noticing the "ml" size was the funniest part of the whole thing! I wondered whether you did that on purpose, to make it even better.

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

   
  18633 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (622) < ... 360 361 362 363 364 [365] 366 367 368 369 370 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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