RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (382) < ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3179
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,22:01   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,17:48)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,16:58)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 21 2012,09:49)
Yeah, you guys, "Molecular Intelligence System" doesn't mean the molecules are intelligent. Jeez. It means... uh... intelligence made of molecules... or something.


It's a scientific concept:

       
Quote
Course 4190.626: Molecular Intelligence (Knowledge Representation and Reasoning)

School of Computer Science and Engineering,
Seoul National University

http://bi.snu.ac.kr/Courses....02.html

What Prof. Zhang is talking about, sure. In Zhang's introductory PowerPoint lecture, he has a graphic showing that the junction of "molecular computing" with "artificial intelligence" yields "molecular intelligence". In other words, artificial intelligence that is achieved using molecular computing techniques.

You, though, are not talking about the same thing as Zhang is when you say "molecular intelligence". What you have going there has a name: equivocation.

They are referencing standard learning and memory material that likewise supports the theory, because both are explaining the same thing!

And you should know that in real-science the best possible thing to have to make all that simple is a model that can unify such concepts. It shows that other researchers are not "equivocation" either, intelligence does exist at the molecular level. You just don't want to admit that I am right about that too.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10071
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,22:13   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,22:01)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,17:48)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,16:58)
   
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 21 2012,09:49)
Yeah, you guys, "Molecular Intelligence System" doesn't mean the molecules are intelligent. Jeez. It means... uh... intelligence made of molecules... or something.


It's a scientific concept:

         
Quote
Course 4190.626: Molecular Intelligence (Knowledge Representation and Reasoning)

School of Computer Science and Engineering,
Seoul National University

http://bi.snu.ac.kr/Courses....02.html

What Prof. Zhang is talking about, sure. In Zhang's introductory PowerPoint lecture, he has a graphic showing that the junction of "molecular computing" with "artificial intelligence" yields "molecular intelligence". In other words, artificial intelligence that is achieved using molecular computing techniques.

You, though, are not talking about the same thing as Zhang is when you say "molecular intelligence". What you have going there has a name: equivocation.

They are referencing standard learning and memory material that likewise supports the theory, because both are explaining the same thing!

And you should know that in real-science the best possible thing to have to make all that simple is a model that can unify such concepts. It shows that other researchers are not "equivocation" either, intelligence does exist at the molecular level. You just don't want to admit that I am right about that too.

BULLSHIT.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3179
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,22:26   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 21 2012,21:42)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,21:36)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 21 2012,21:19)
I'm sorry Gary, but you are simply dishonest. There is no commonality between the work of Prof. Zhang and your VB script other than the phrase "molecular intelligence" which you both use to mean very different things.

Prove it by showing their model which explains "molecular intelligence" in context with "behavior of matter", "cellular intelligence" and "multicellular intelligence" with the algorithm/circuit you are suggesting exists at that site.

You will find none, because they do not write theory to unify such scientific concepts. That's what the Theory of Intelligent Design is for.

Let me get this straight - *I* have to prove that your model is like his? It isn't. You went fishing for support, linked to something you didn't understand and got caught with your pants down, bullshitter Gary.

This discussion requires you or someone else to show where Professor Zhang even attempts to explain the similarities between all known levels of intelligence and behavior of matter. Without that you are just saying they don't agree, without ever producing evidence to know either way. You pretend that their references for their claims disagrees with what the theory states even when there is no conflict at all, in fact that is why I found their site such a resource.

--------------
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: 10071
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,22:34   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,22:26)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 21 2012,21:42)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,21:36)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 21 2012,21:19)
I'm sorry Gary, but you are simply dishonest. There is no commonality between the work of Prof. Zhang and your VB script other than the phrase "molecular intelligence" which you both use to mean very different things.

Prove it by showing their model which explains "molecular intelligence" in context with "behavior of matter", "cellular intelligence" and "multicellular intelligence" with the algorithm/circuit you are suggesting exists at that site.

You will find none, because they do not write theory to unify such scientific concepts. That's what the Theory of Intelligent Design is for.

Let me get this straight - *I* have to prove that your model is like his? It isn't. You went fishing for support, linked to something you didn't understand and got caught with your pants down, bullshitter Gary.

This discussion requires you or someone else to show where Professor Zhang even attempts to explain the similarities between all known levels of intelligence and behavior of matter. Without that you are just saying they don't agree, without ever producing evidence to know either way. You pretend that their references for their claims disagrees with what the theory states even when there is no conflict at all, in fact that is why I found their site such a resource.

Okay bullshitter Gary, welcome to science.

I see you're trying this:

https://encyclopediadramatica.se/index.p....id=9139

but we only really accept this:

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

Quote
Holder of the burden

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.[2][3]


If *you* think they are related then *you* must prove it. Not by highlighting equivocal phrases, or that "he uses words, I use words" but a deep level of coherence in concepts.

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,22:46   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 21 2012,22:34)
{snip}

If *you* think they are related then *you* must prove it. Not by highlighting equivocal phrases, or that "he uses words, I use words" but a deep level of coherence in concepts.

I found the problem.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10071
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,22:58   

Bullshitter Gary:

Quote
You pretend that their references for their claims disagrees with what the theory states even when there is no conflict at all, in fact that is why I found their site such a resource.


This is a complete fabrication. We have said all along they are unrelated, not that they disagree or are in conflict.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3179
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,23:04   

I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,23:12   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:04)
I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

Responding to invented things no one has said is generally unproductive.

Why not respond to the things that actually have been said? It would make a nice change of pace for you.

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3179
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,23:20   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:12)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:04)
I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

Responding to invented things no one has said is generally unproductive.

Why not respond to the things that actually have been said? It would make a nice change of pace for you.

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is coherent?

--------------
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: 3179
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,23:24   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:20)
Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is coherent?

Excuse Typo, can't edit, but here is how it should read:

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is incoherent?

--------------
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: 10071
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,23:25   

Gary, you're an idiot. If you believe there is a link beyond the use of a highly equivocal phrase in Prof. Zhang's work and yours, make a case. Prof. Zhang my also be invited to this discourse. So far all you've done is make things up and erect strawmen.

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

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,23:25   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:20)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:12)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:04)
I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

Responding to invented things no one has said is generally unproductive.

Why not respond to the things that actually have been said? It would make a nice change of pace for you.

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is coherent?

And do you agree that cute kittens don't invalidate Gary's "theory"?

Well!

Glen Davidson

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

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,23:26   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:20)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:12)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:04)
I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

Responding to invented things no one has said is generally unproductive.

Why not respond to the things that actually have been said? It would make a nice change of pace for you.

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is coherent?

There's plenty of other things that you need to know, but I can heartily assent to the notion that nothing I've said supports the idea that your work is coherent.

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

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10071
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,23:27   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:24)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:20)
Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is coherent?

Excuse Typo, can't edit, but here is how it should read:

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is incoherent?

Goalposts moved Gary! What a good fighting retreat!

Origional claim:

Quote
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 21 2012,09:49)
Yeah, you guys, "Molecular Intelligence System" doesn't mean the molecules are intelligent. Jeez. It means... uh... intelligence made of molecules... or something.


It's a scientific concept:

     
Quote
Course 4190.626: Molecular Intelligence (Knowledge Representation and Reasoning)

School of Computer Science and Engineering,
Seoul National University

http://bi.snu.ac.kr/Courses....02.html


Found to be quotemined bluster. Next?

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3179
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,23:32   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 21 2012,23:25)
Gary, you're an idiot. If you believe there is a link beyond the use of a highly equivocal phrase in Prof. Zhang's work and yours, make a case. Prof. Zhang my also be invited to this discourse. So far all you've done is make things up and erect strawmen.

I was hoping you would invite them.

Theory is here:

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

Computer model here:

http://intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/....pot.com

--------------
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: 3179
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,23:34   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 21 2012,23:25)
Gary, you're an idiot. If you believe there is a link beyond the use of a highly equivocal phrase in Prof. Zhang's work and yours, make a case. Prof. Zhang my also be invited to this discourse. So far all you've done is make things up and erect strawmen.

I was hoping you would invite them.

Theory is here:

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

Computer model here:

http://intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com



--------------
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: 10071
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,23:37   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:34)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 21 2012,23:25)
Gary, you're an idiot. If you believe there is a link beyond the use of a highly equivocal phrase in Prof. Zhang's work and yours, make a case. Prof. Zhang my also be invited to this discourse. So far all you've done is make things up and erect strawmen.

I was hoping you would invite them.

Theory is here:

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

Computer model here:

http://intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com


Sorry Bullshitter, but theories look like this:

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

Quote
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.[5]


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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3179
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,23:43   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:26)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:20)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:12)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:04)
I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

Responding to invented things no one has said is generally unproductive.

Why not respond to the things that actually have been said? It would make a nice change of pace for you.

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is coherent?

There's plenty of other things that you need to know, but I can heartily assent to the notion that nothing I've said supports the idea that your work is coherent.

Only thing you did is help bully my statement about molecular intelligence being a scientific concept, which it is.

You have no evidence against the theory. If you did then you have presented some by now.

--------------
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: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,23:46   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:43)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:26)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:20)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:12)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:04)
I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

Responding to invented things no one has said is generally unproductive.

Why not respond to the things that actually have been said? It would make a nice change of pace for you.

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is coherent?

There's plenty of other things that you need to know, but I can heartily assent to the notion that nothing I've said supports the idea that your work is coherent.

Only thing you did is help bully my statement about molecular intelligence being a scientific concept, which it is.

You have no evidence against the theory. If you did then you have presented some by now.

If your conjecture is unfalsifiable, the consequence would be that no contrary evidence exists. Asking people to refute something with no possible contrary evidence would be a pretty brazen example of chutzpah.

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

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10071
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,23:53   

Bullshitter Gary wants to be a scientific carpetbagger! How 'uncommon descent'!

Edited by Richardthughes on Nov. 21 2012,23:53

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3179
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2012,00:16   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:46)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:43)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:26)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:20)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:12)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:04)
I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

Responding to invented things no one has said is generally unproductive.

Why not respond to the things that actually have been said? It would make a nice change of pace for you.

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is coherent?

There's plenty of other things that you need to know, but I can heartily assent to the notion that nothing I've said supports the idea that your work is coherent.

Only thing you did is help bully my statement about molecular intelligence being a scientific concept, which it is.

You have no evidence against the theory. If you did then you have presented some by now.

If your conjecture is unfalsifiable, the consequence would be that no contrary evidence exists. Asking people to refute something with no possible contrary evidence would be a pretty brazen example of chutzpah.

Now we're back to Popper philosophy and your religion based conclusions to try getting out of having to address the model which references to:

David L. Heiserman
http://www.beam-wiki.org/wiki.......avid_L.

Arnold Trehub, especially Chapter 9, Page 158, Fig 9.3
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....ub....b
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....er9.pdf

You have no better model to show, nothing at all to help pioneer developing fields. Instead stomp on them so they are not taken seriously like they should have been right along.

--------------
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: 10071
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2012,00:22   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 22 2012,00:16)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:46)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:43)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:26)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:20)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:12)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:04)
I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

Responding to invented things no one has said is generally unproductive.

Why not respond to the things that actually have been said? It would make a nice change of pace for you.

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is coherent?

There's plenty of other things that you need to know, but I can heartily assent to the notion that nothing I've said supports the idea that your work is coherent.

Only thing you did is help bully my statement about molecular intelligence being a scientific concept, which it is.

You have no evidence against the theory. If you did then you have presented some by now.

If your conjecture is unfalsifiable, the consequence would be that no contrary evidence exists. Asking people to refute something with no possible contrary evidence would be a pretty brazen example of chutzpah.

Now we're back to Popper philosophy and your religion based conclusions to try getting out of having to address the model which references to:

David L. Heiserman
http://www.beam-wiki.org/wiki.......avid_L.

Arnold Trehub, especially Chapter 9, Page 158, Fig 9.3
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....ub....b
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....er9.pdf

You have no better model to show, nothing at all to help pioneer developing fields. Instead stomp on them so they are not taken seriously like they should have been right along.

Oh noes! Bullshitter Gary's argument is a negative "I don't think evolution can do stuff!" one. And even worse, those key-holding, gate-keeping, loyalty-requiring religious zealots at antievolution.org are stopping him from doing science and stomping on his ideas and not taking him seriously!

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2012,00:30   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 22 2012,00:16)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:46)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:43)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:26)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:20)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:12)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:04)
I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

Responding to invented things no one has said is generally unproductive.

Why not respond to the things that actually have been said? It would make a nice change of pace for you.

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is coherent?

There's plenty of other things that you need to know, but I can heartily assent to the notion that nothing I've said supports the idea that your work is coherent.

Only thing you did is help bully my statement about molecular intelligence being a scientific concept, which it is.

You have no evidence against the theory. If you did then you have presented some by now.

If your conjecture is unfalsifiable, the consequence would be that no contrary evidence exists. Asking people to refute something with no possible contrary evidence would be a pretty brazen example of chutzpah.

Now we're back to Popper philosophy and your religion based conclusions to try getting out of having to address the model which references to:

David L. Heiserman
http://www.beam-wiki.org/wiki.......avid_L.

Arnold Trehub, especially Chapter 9, Page 158, Fig 9.3
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....ub....b
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....er9.pdf

You have no better model to show, nothing at all to help pioneer developing fields. Instead stomp on them so they are not taken seriously like they should have been right along.

Gary, can you not see how disclaiming falsifiability and also calling for critics to attempt to falsify your work is inconsistent, if not contradictory?

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3179
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2012,00:47   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 22 2012,00:22)
Oh noes! Bullshitter Gary's argument is a negative "I don't think evolution can do stuff!" one. And even worse, those key-holding, gate-keeping, loyalty-requiring religious zealots at antievolution.org are stopping him from doing science and stomping on his ideas and not taking him seriously!

That is a good example of the turf-war in US science and education where sciences pertaining to intelligence are spit-on, so that it can be made to appear that Darwinian theory already explained how intelligence works too. It's no wonder the academic neglect led to "intelligence" becoming such a controversy.

--------------
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: 3179
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2012,00:57   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 22 2012,00:30)
Quote (GaryGaulin]Popper philosophy and your religion based conclusions to try getting out of having to address the model which references to:

David L. Heiserman
[URL=http://www.beam-wiki.org/wiki/Heiserman @ _David_L.)
http://www.beam-wiki.org/wiki.......avid_L.[/URL]

Arnold Trehub, especially Chapter 9, Page 158, Fig 9.3
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....ub....b
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....er9.pdf

You have no better model to show, nothing at all to help pioneer developing fields. Instead stomp on them so they are not taken seriously like they should have been right along.

Gary, can you not see how disclaiming falsifiability and also calling for critics to attempt to falsify your work is inconsistent, if not contradictory?

Then YOU explain how intelligence works using a high school level model that applies to all known intelligence levels (molecular, cellular, multicellular)!  Show circuit and algorithm, along with evidence that your model came from established cognitive science experts.

--------------
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: 10071
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2012,00:59   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 22 2012,00:47)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 22 2012,00:22)
Oh noes! Bullshitter Gary's argument is a negative "I don't think evolution can do stuff!" one. And even worse, those key-holding, gate-keeping, loyalty-requiring religious zealots at antievolution.org are stopping him from doing science and stomping on his ideas and not taking him seriously!

That is a good example of the turf-war in US science and education where sciences pertaining to intelligence are spit-on, so that it can be made to appear that Darwinian theory already explained how intelligence works too. It's no wonder the academic neglect led to "intelligence" becoming such a controversy.

GaryTroll: Again, where do you think you are, dipshit?

We poke fun at creationists. Strange you are attracted here. This isn't the place for doing science, not that you ever could.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10071
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2012,01:06   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 22 2012,00:57)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 22 2012,00:30)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin]Popper philosophy and your religion based conclusions to try getting out of having to address the model which references to:

David L. Heiserman
[URL=http://www.beam-wiki.org/wiki/Heiserman @ _David_L.)
http://www.beam-wiki.org/wiki.......avid_L.[/URL]

Arnold Trehub, especially Chapter 9, Page 158, Fig 9.3
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....ub....b
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....er9.pdf

You have no better model to show, nothing at all to help pioneer developing fields. Instead stomp on them so they are not taken seriously like they should have been right along.

Gary, can you not see how disclaiming falsifiability and also calling for critics to attempt to falsify your work is inconsistent, if not contradictory?

Then YOU explain how intelligence works using a high school level model that applies to all known intelligence levels (molecular, cellular, multicellular)!  Show circuit and algorithm, along with evidence that your model came from established cognitive science experts.

Oh, we've seen how you link to experts Gary: "Look, he used the same phrase as me!"

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1746
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2012,03:20   

Intelligent molecules go mad...

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3265
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2012,07:17   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 22 2012,00:57)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 22 2012,00:30)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin]Popper philosophy and your religion based conclusions to try getting out of having to address the model which references to:

David L. Heiserman
[URL=http://www.beam-wiki.org/wiki/Heiserman @ _David_L.)
http://www.beam-wiki.org/wiki.......avid_L.[/URL]

Arnold Trehub, especially Chapter 9, Page 158, Fig 9.3
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....ub....b
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....er9.pdf

You have no better model to show, nothing at all to help pioneer developing fields. Instead stomp on them so they are not taken seriously like they should have been right along.

Gary, can you not see how disclaiming falsifiability and also calling for critics to attempt to falsify your work is inconsistent, if not contradictory?

Then YOU explain

Why should we have to explain anything?
Quote

how intelligence works using a high school level model

Especially this.  In other words, why should we try to explain something to you when you lack even the level of scientific education you want to talk about.
Quote


that applies to all known intelligence levels (molecular, cellular, multicellular)!

Further, why should we have to explain something that we don't think is correct?
Quote

 Show circuit and algorithm, along with evidence that your model came from established cognitive science experts.

Again, why?  We should we do your work for us?

You don't get it, but it's actually up to you to defend your notions.  Not us.

Edited by OgreMkV on Nov. 22 2012,07:18

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2012,08:09   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 22 2012,00:57)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 22 2012,00:30)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin]Popper philosophy and your religion based conclusions to try getting out of having to address the model which references to:

David L. Heiserman
[URL=http://www.beam-wiki.org/wiki/Heiserman @ _David_L.)
http://www.beam-wiki.org/wiki.......avid_L.[/URL]

Arnold Trehub, especially Chapter 9, Page 158, Fig 9.3
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....ub....b
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....er9.pdf

You have no better model to show, nothing at all to help pioneer developing fields. Instead stomp on them so they are not taken seriously like they should have been right along.

Gary, can you not see how disclaiming falsifiability and also calling for critics to attempt to falsify your work is inconsistent, if not contradictory?

Then YOU explain how intelligence works using a high school level model that applies to all known intelligence levels (molecular, cellular, multicellular)!  Show circuit and algorithm, along with evidence that your model came from established cognitive science experts.

Gary, whether or not you think that falsification is properly viewed as a demarcation criterion for science, Popper nailed the point that we can't determine that a scientific theory is true in an absolute sense. It is quite common for a theory to incorporate a number of verifiable basic statements, yet still be false in its predictions.

So far you've insisted that people critiquing your work prove it false, though you explicitly disclaim the applicability of falsifiability to it, and then insisted that they prove it true, with apparently no misgivings whatsoever that this confirms the critique about lack of substantiation from you.

For someone concerned about scientific credibility, this is not a good thing.

In my research, I don't have the same goals as you do. I have to reject the notion that I have developed no models and contributed nothing to scientific progress. You may not like my work, and you may reject my work as being applicable to your personal project, but that does not make it go away.

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

    
  11443 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (382) < ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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