RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 331 332 333 334 335 [336] 337 338 339 340 341 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2014,12:15   

I don't know -- he'd have to raise his ideas to the level of 3rd grade (or 3rd rate?) to warrant improving his language skills to that level.

That man has the worst case of fulminating delusions of adequacy I've ever seen.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2014,19:56   

Quote (N.Wells @ 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."


You are still asking for removal of the "systematically" qualifier and adding ambiguity by using "or", which can be made to seem like I am guessing.

 
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.


I still feel like I'm being forced to dumb-down to "Third grade English" standards and sloppy attention to detail indicative of political activists. I cannot ruin what I have, just to suit their antiscientific interests.

--------------
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 08 2014,20:46   

1) No one is forcing you to do anything.
2) Attention to detail is one of the many things your writing, and your 'thinking', lack any sign of.
3) No one could possibly ruin that smoldering pile of rubbish of which you are so inordinately proud.

Get over yourself and listen to the criticisms raised.
You pathetic loser.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2014,21:05   

Quote
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.


 
Quote
You are still asking for removal of the "systematically" qualifier and adding ambiguity by using "or", which can be made to seem like I am guessing.


I am not suggesting that you get rid of "image" or "likeness" (try reading for comprehension).  I am suggesting that you add "or", because just having a comma is ungrammatical and leaves readers puzzled about what you mean to say.  "Or" sounds like you are offering a synonym as a way of clarifying what you mean, not like you are guessing.  

However, I am suggesting that unless you document the applicability of "systematically" you should drop it, because you haven't described any systematic emergence (heck, you haven't even demonstrated any emergence) and without justification for its use it constitutes a hollow claim that further undermines your credibility by making you sound like you are trying to seem impressive by flinging buzzwords around.

 
Quote
I still feel like I'm being forced to dumb-down to "Third grade English" standards
Gary, we couldn't dumb you down any further than you already do all by yourself if we tried.  Third-grade English would be a step up for your writing: it really is that bad.  You tend to have huge disconnects between what you want to say and what you actually say, and between both of those and reality.  If we ever were to get your prose up to the point where it was lucid, we would then face the even larger task of matching it up with reality.

 
Quote
and sloppy attention to detail indicative of political activists. I cannot ruin what I have, just to suit their antiscientific interests.
You really are delusional.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2014,21:31   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 08 2014,21:05)
I am not suggesting that you get rid of "image" or "likeness" (try reading for comprehension).  I am suggesting that you add "or", because just having a comma is ungrammatical and leaves readers puzzled about what you mean to say.  "Or" sounds like you are offering a synonym as a way of clarifying what you mean, not like you are guessing.
 

From my experience I will have left myself open to quote-miners who will use the "or" for semantics arguments like "Can't he make up his mind?" and other rubbish.

 
Quote (N.Wells @ April 08 2014,21:05)
However, I am suggesting that unless you document the applicability of "systematically" you should drop it, because you haven't described any systematic emergence (heck, you haven't even demonstrated any emergence) and without justification for its use it constitutes a hollow claim that further undermines your credibility by making you sound like you are trying to seem impressive by flinging buzzwords around.


It is not my responsibility to keep those who will pretend to be experts up to date in science:

Wikipedia: Systems biology

They can also easily enough look up the word in a dictionary. If they cannot then they should just shut-up and listen for a change.

--------------
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 2014,22:25   

Quote
each systematically in their own image, likeness.
Gary, do what you want, but bear in mind that "image, likeness" just sounds illiterate [you could go with "image (i.e. likeness)"].  Saying "systematically" (without justification for using it) shows that YOU have no idea what you are talking about, which is made even worse if you mistakenly think that "systematically" gives you some sort of aroma of association with systems biology.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2014,23:11   

Quote
From: Theory of Intelligent Design

Preface/Premise

Several decades of following scientific evidence wherever it leads has led to this cognitive theory to explain the phenomenon of "intelligent cause" as is required by the theory’s premise which states:

“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.”

The logical construct of this theory does not have or need a “natural selection” variable. It is here vital to only use terminology required for cognitive science, systems biology and robotics, which together explain and can model the tenacious self-learning mechanisms of intelligent living things which more specifically "learn" (not select/selected) and can take a "guess” (not mutate) and in its lifetime physically “develop” (not evolve).


Those who refuse to discuss what is clearly enough stated in the theory are attempting to fabricate an issue where no scientific issue exists. I am not going to dumb-down the theory for them.

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

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2014,23:15   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 08 2014,23:11)
Quote
From: Theory of Intelligent Design

Preface/Premise

Several decades of following scientific evidence wherever it leads has led to this cognitive theory to explain the phenomenon of "intelligent cause" as is required by the theory’s premise which states:

“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.”

The logical construct of this theory does not have or need a “natural selection” variable. It is here vital to only use terminology required for cognitive science, systems biology and robotics, which together explain and can model the tenacious self-learning mechanisms of intelligent living things which more specifically "learn" (not select/selected) and can take a "guess” (not mutate) and in its lifetime physically “develop” (not evolve).


Those who refuse to discuss what is clearly enough stated in the theory are attempting to fabricate an issue where no scientific issue exists. I am not going to dumb-down the theory for them.

How could it get more dumb than your premises anyway?

Glen Davidson

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

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

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2014,23:31   

I presume that your bolding of "systems biology" is supposed to justify your use of "systematic"?  

If so, it doesn't.  Although systematic can indeed mean broadly related to systems, when thrown around in the vicinity of biology, "systematic" primarily either implies a methodical and ordered investigation or refers specifically to systematic biology ("systematics", i.e. the determination of evolutionary relationships), which rather makes it a word you'd be best off avoiding.  Systems biology, in contrast, refers to holistic or systemic (sensu system-wide) approaches to broad and interconnected subjects.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2014,00:09   

I am not changing anything.

Models demonstrating the systematics of biological intelligence systems are required. I don't care about how many scientific words you think you own.

--------------
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 09 2014,00:41   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 09 2014,00:09)
I am not changing anything.

Be my guest - go ahead and look like an idiot. In large part, we're here for the giggles anyway.

Quote
Models demonstrating the systematics of biological intelligence systems are required. I don't care about how many scientific words you think you own.

I agree that the systematics of biological intelligence systems is an important topic for investigation, but neither your model nor your ideas bear any relationship to that at all.  If they are supposed to, then your idiocy of modelling hippocampi in insects is even worse than we had imagined.  You are, once again, jumping from one tenuous abusage of a word to another in the futile hope of trying to avoid being wrong.  As others have observed:

 
Quote
Whatever is convenient to supporting your delusion du jour, whatever makes your nonsense fractionally more correct or less ridiculous, that must be what you 'really meant', regardless of what you said.


 
Quote
You don't get to constantly redefine terms to mean what you currently need them to mean, then reinterpret them every time they come up.


I don't think I own any words - I just want you to use them properly and respect their standard meanings, or justify alternate usages.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2014,00:58   

I have had enough insults thank you.

Just let me know when you are prepared to discuss scientific issues.

--------------
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: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2014,01:05   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 09 2014,00:58)
I have had enough insults thank you.

Just let me know when you are prepared to discuss scientific issues.

As soon as you do some science, Gary.

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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2014,06:55   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 09 2014,00:58)
I have had enough insults thank you.

Just let me know when you are prepared to discuss scientific issues.


Exact definitions and precision of terminology are part of the foundation of scientific practice.  I'm surprised that you don't know that.

Nonetheless:

What are the implications of modelling hippocampi in insects for the systematics of "biological intelligence systems"?  

How do salmon defend "nests full of young" when they are either dead or gone?  Does that ability require an exceptional augmentation of molecular intelligence?

What are the implications for systematics of including silky marmosets in your redefinition of humans?

Edited to add: for that matter, what are the systematic implications of modelling what you yourself describe as a compound-eye insect, but only giving it four legs?  If you are suddenly going to start tossing around claims about systematics, it behooves you to get such very basic stuff correct.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2014,07:22   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 09 2014,00:11)
 
Quote
From: Theory of Intelligent Design

Preface/Premise

Several decades of following scientific evidence wherever it leads has led to this cognitive theory to explain the phenomenon of "intelligent cause" as is required by the theory’s premise which states:

“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.”

The logical construct of this theory does not have or need a “natural selection” variable. It is here vital to only use terminology required for cognitive science, systems biology and robotics, which together explain and can model the tenacious self-learning mechanisms of intelligent living things which more specifically "learn" (not select/selected) and can take a "guess” (not mutate) and in its lifetime physically “develop” (not evolve).


Those who refuse to discuss what is clearly enough stated in the theory are attempting to fabricate an issue where no scientific issue exists. I am not going to dumb-down the theory for them.

1)  There is nothing stated clearly in the "theory" other than vapid generalities of no use and no insight whatsoever.  As an example, until you can specify what 'features of the universe' you are talking about, your statement is semantically null.  It is also, in its vapidity, entirely non-controversial.  You have yet to identify a problem that needs to be solved.

2)  The only person who refuses to discuss what is in the "theory" is you.  We have all presented countless examples of problematic expression of ideas, problematic ideas, inconsistencies, incoherencies, and contradictions in that fetid collection of tortured and abused English you continue to mislabel a "theory".

There is no need for anyone to fabricate issues with your nonsense.  "Molecular intelligence" and your misuse of the term "learning" in the context of an alleged participation in Cognitive Science are merely two gigantic issues with your effluent.

As has been noted here and elsewhere, it is literally impossible to 'dumb down' your work.  Your dadaist prose cannot possibly be reduced to a state where it would possess less intellectual content.
Sadly, it also lacks the artistic merit of Marcel Duchamp or Lewis Carroll.

As a closing note, if you look back over the last 10 or 15 pages, you'll see that I predicted that you would revert to discussion of your "theory" now that your software has been beaten to a pink mist.  We can safely predict that after a period of increasingly hysterical denunciations, deflections, and distractions in attempting to avoid discussion of your "theory" you will revert back to trumpeting your progress on your absurdist software.
You see, that's the thing about being an ignorant loser with nothing to contribute, Gary -- you become entirely predictable.

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2014,12:27   

Mr. Kinda Maybe Science wrote:
Quote
Those who refuse to discuss what is clearly enough stated in the theory are attempting to fabricate an issue where no scientific issue exists. I am not going to dumb-down the theory for them.

Jeez, we just asked what you meant.  It's not a matter of dumbing down your 'theory', it's a matter of making sense to the very people who actually work with science, not pine away at it from some basement den.  We've been telling you that from the get-go.  The problem of lack of communication isn't ours, it's YOURS.  You've previously referenced various dictionaries and definitions, please read (and understand) them so we can all be on the same page.  Your going might get better if you do.

Meantime, we'll keep posting your failures.  'Cuz you're a hoot!

:)  :)  :)  :)

  
Nomad



Posts: 311
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2014,06:24   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 08 2014,19:56)
I still feel like I'm being forced to dumb-down to "Third grade English" standards and sloppy attention to detail indicative of political activists.

And here you go again Gary.  You basically no longer get to pull out your tired "k-12 simple" claim.  You have a history of claiming that your theory is somehow supposed to both expand the frontiers of human knowledge, AND be appropriate to be taught to children in Kindergarten.  You claim that you are keeping things simple on purpose because of the all important "k-12 simplicity".

And then when called on something you complain that you're being asked to dumb it down to the level that you have repeatedly said that you wanted to make it appropriate for.

I have to agree with jeffox.  What a hoot.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2014,10:17   

At this point, after Gary's 5+ years on the net  and nearly 400 pages in this thread alone, I think we have to read 'hoot' as 'laughingstock'.

  
Lethean



Posts: 292
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2014,06:04   

#996: Joan Ocean

   
Quote
Joan Ocean comes across as a really nice but stunningly crazy lady who, according to her bio, has a degree in Counseling Psychology and is “internationally known for her work in the field of human-dolphin and whale communication.”

[...]

At present she “experiences the gentle communication of the dolphins and whales as sound holography [yeah, you think you’ll get a further explanation? Good luck with that], a language that intensifies physical senses, bypasses rational-cognitive paradigms [indeed], resonates directly with our cellular intelligence, and awakens multiple levels of perception and consciousness.”

[...]

Ocean has determined that “the cetaceans are able to encode frequencies to resonate with our personal patterns as we swim among them in the ocean,” and the information they convey is apparently therefore “translatable by us, because they are using our own neurological fibers, non-verbal, non-cognitive, emotional programs as the medium for communication.” But we should let Ocean explain: “It is through our feelings and intuition that we are able to access this transmission. The cetaceans are advanced in the science of esoteric, multi-dimensional intelligences which include both the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations, desires and universal blueprint/patterns/sigils of others and the capacity to understand themselves in the same way.”


I thought Gary might find Ocean's ideas notable enough to incorporate into his theory. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the bolded bits, especially the "resonates directly with our cellular intelligence" part. Perhaps Gary could shed some light on this.

--------------
"So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance."

"My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it."


~Dave Hawkins~

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2014,06:38   

Quote (Lethean @ April 15 2014,06:04)
#996: Joan Ocean

     
Quote
Joan Ocean comes across as a really nice but stunningly crazy lady who, according to her bio, has a degree in Counseling Psychology and is “internationally known for her work in the field of human-dolphin and whale communication.”

[...]

At present she “experiences the gentle communication of the dolphins and whales as sound holography [yeah, you think you’ll get a further explanation? Good luck with that], a language that intensifies physical senses, bypasses rational-cognitive paradigms [indeed], resonates directly with our cellular intelligence, and awakens multiple levels of perception and consciousness.”

[...]

Ocean has determined that “the cetaceans are able to encode frequencies to resonate with our personal patterns as we swim among them in the ocean,” and the information they convey is apparently therefore “translatable by us, because they are using our own neurological fibers, non-verbal, non-cognitive, emotional programs as the medium for communication.” But we should let Ocean explain: “It is through our feelings and intuition that we are able to access this transmission. The cetaceans are advanced in the science of esoteric, multi-dimensional intelligences which include both the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations, desires and universal blueprint/patterns/sigils of others and the capacity to understand themselves in the same way.”


I thought Gary might find Ocean's ideas notable enough to incorporate into his theory. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the bolded bits, especially the "resonates directly with our cellular intelligence" part. Perhaps Gary could shed some light on this.

Go screw yourself.

--------------
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 15 2014,06:51   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 09 2014,01:58)
I have had enough insults thank you.

Just let me know when you are prepared to discuss scientific issues.

Almost a week since he posted this Gary reappears.  Only to hurl insults at a poster who pointed out an occurrence of one of Gary's pet mad notions in the work of another.
Does Gary attempt to discuss the 'scientific issues'?  Of course not.
Does Gary point out why the issues are not actual 'scientific issues'?  Of course not.
Does Gary do as Gary accuses others of doing?  Of course.

Get over yourself Gary.  You're a pathetic loser and it's tirades like your last two posts that prove it.

We're ready to discuss the scientific issues when you're ready to bring even one to the table.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2014,08:03   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 15 2014,14:38)
Quote (Lethean @ April 15 2014,06:04)
#996: Joan Ocean

     
Quote
Joan Ocean comes across as a really nice but stunningly crazy lady who, according to her bio, has a degree in Counseling Psychology and is “internationally known for her work in the field of human-dolphin and whale communication.”

[...]

At present she “experiences the gentle communication of the dolphins and whales as sound holography [yeah, you think you’ll get a further explanation? Good luck with that], a language that intensifies physical senses, bypasses rational-cognitive paradigms [indeed], resonates directly with our cellular intelligence, and awakens multiple levels of perception and consciousness.”

[...]

Ocean has determined that “the cetaceans are able to encode frequencies to resonate with our personal patterns as we swim among them in the ocean,” and the information they convey is apparently therefore “translatable by us, because they are using our own neurological fibers, non-verbal, non-cognitive, emotional programs as the medium for communication.” But we should let Ocean explain: “It is through our feelings and intuition that we are able to access this transmission. The cetaceans are advanced in the science of esoteric, multi-dimensional intelligences which include both the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations, desires and universal blueprint/patterns/sigils of others and the capacity to understand themselves in the same way.”


I thought Gary might find Ocean's ideas notable enough to incorporate into his theory. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the bolded bits, especially the "resonates directly with our cellular intelligence" part. Perhaps Gary could shed some light on this.

Go screw yourself.

It seems Gary you could do that with your alter ego Joan. Is that your mother's dress you're wearing? How do you and Joan talk to each other do you go into separate rooms?

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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2014,08:26   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 15 2014,06:38)
Quote (Lethean @ April 15 2014,06:04)
#996: Joan Ocean

       
Quote
Joan Ocean comes across as a really nice but stunningly crazy lady who, according to her bio, has a degree in Counseling Psychology and is “internationally known for her work in the field of human-dolphin and whale communication.”

[...]

At present she “experiences the gentle communication of the dolphins and whales as sound holography [yeah, you think you’ll get a further explanation? Good luck with that], a language that intensifies physical senses, bypasses rational-cognitive paradigms [indeed], resonates directly with our cellular intelligence, and awakens multiple levels of perception and consciousness.”

[...]

Ocean has determined that “the cetaceans are able to encode frequencies to resonate with our personal patterns as we swim among them in the ocean,” and the information they convey is apparently therefore “translatable by us, because they are using our own neurological fibers, non-verbal, non-cognitive, emotional programs as the medium for communication.” But we should let Ocean explain: “It is through our feelings and intuition that we are able to access this transmission. The cetaceans are advanced in the science of esoteric, multi-dimensional intelligences which include both the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations, desires and universal blueprint/patterns/sigils of others and the capacity to understand themselves in the same way.”


I thought Gary might find Ocean's ideas notable enough to incorporate into his theory. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the bolded bits, especially the "resonates directly with our cellular intelligence" part. Perhaps Gary could shed some light on this.

Go screw yourself.

Lethean, thank you very much for sharing that gem.

So, Gary, if Joan Ocean's work runs counter to your understanding of cellular intelligence and multiple levels of perception and consciousness, in what way(s) is she wrong, and how do we know that?

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2014,09:02   

Re: "Go screw yourself."

Given Gary's inability to articulate himself other than through projection, maybe the question is what did Gary do to anger his wife?

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

    
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2014,11:10   

I think it's more likely that Gary took it personally that the list was down for several days.  He has so over-inflated his ego, in service of increasing the target area for slights and insults, it had to have been done specifically to slight him and the brilliant insights he was poised to post.

IOW:
Fulminating delusions of adequacy.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2014,14:22   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 15 2014,09:02)
Re: "Go screw yourself."

Given Gary's inability to articulate himself other than through projection, maybe the question is what did Gary do to anger his wife?

With all considered my wife is in a good mood. And I'm currently happily cleaning up the IDLab4 after this morning (before posting) getting the Fwd/Rev and Lft/Rgt walking directions working so incredibly well in an average test with the new Grid Cell Network system that I had to increase its drain rate (metabolism) by 10 because of the green line showing stomach fullness almost right away going to full scale then staying there, while success rates now make it to 100% as well. Only thing left is to add the Place and Time cells back into the circuit with a method that should turn out to prove as biologically accurate as it gets even though how it works is very simple.

What I'm upset at are the usual insults instead of help, with something I'm the first to explain, that was already of interest to AI before even adding the IDLab and its operational theory the Theory of Intelligent Design for adding self-designing cellular and molecular level systems. For the sake of all scientists who might be onto something related to molecular or cellular intelligence it's most important that I get the model I am now working on finished and online. What applies at the upper level with Grid networks is expected to apply at smaller size scale networks, for them to look for in their search for what others might have missed.

One worth an A+ is:

Plants: Intelligent Beings? Find out on 'What Plants Talk About'

My earlier three word reply was a reflection of how much of a priority level that one deserved. I already have plenty of good company in the science realm who are even on TV explaining their observations, I help support. But in this reply I can include a useful new PBS video to work from in predicting what else is possible with just (as per theory) "cellular intelligence" in a system.

As far as the theory and I are concerned Avida and such are antiquated by models that have to include Grid, Place, Border and Time cells and do well in a shock zone arena test for rat level navigational intelligence. It's nothing personal just science advancing past GA models, in part from what I'm now explaining and must get back to work on.

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

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2014,14:44   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 15 2014,14:22)
For the sake of all scientists who might be onto something related to molecular or cellular intelligence it's most important that I get the model I am now working on finished and online. What applies at the upper level with Grid networks is expected to apply at smaller size scale networks, for them to look for in their search for what others might have missed.

The entire cognitive science community is waiting eagerly-impatiently for the new "model", so I hope you get it posted soon so that everyone can get it incorporated into their work and move real-science forward.

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

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2014,15:42   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 15 2014,15:22)
...
What I'm upset at are the usual insults instead of help, with something I'm the first to explain, ...

Except for the pesky fact that you've never explained anything, at least not with your "theory" or, except for trivially self-referential items, your software.
Your "theory" has great gaping holes as the entirety of its content, with the occasional contradiction or misuse of standard terminology from the fields you claim to work in festooning it.  It is less than a nullity.  It is, as has been said of far more significant works, not even wrong.

But go ahead, you're so eager to 'discuss the science', provide a concrete phenomenon as an example and  explain it using your 'theory'.  I dare you.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2014,05:45   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 15 2014,22:22)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 15 2014,09:02)
Re: "Go screw yourself."

Given Gary's inability to articulate himself other than through projection, maybe the question is what did Gary do to anger his wife?

With all considered my wife is in a good mood. And I'm currently happily cleaning up the IDLab4 after this morning (before posting) getting the Fwd/Rev and Lft/Rgt walking directions working so incredibly well in an average test with the new Grid Cell Network system that I had to increase its drain rate (metabolism) by 10 because of the green line showing stomach fullness almost right away going to full scale then staying there, while success rates now make it to 100% as well. Only thing left is to add the Place and Time cells back into the circuit with a method that should turn out to prove as biologically accurate as it gets even though how it works is very simple.

What I'm upset at are the usual insults instead of help, with something I'm the first to explain, that was already of interest to AI before even adding the IDLab and its operational theory the Theory of Intelligent Design for adding self-designing cellular and molecular level systems. For the sake of all scientists who might be onto something related to molecular or cellular intelligence it's most important that I get the model I am now working on finished and online. What applies at the upper level with Grid networks is expected to apply at smaller size scale networks, for them to look for in their search for what others might have missed.

One worth an A+ is:

Plants: Intelligent Beings? Find out on 'What Plants Talk About'

My earlier three word reply was a reflection of how much of a priority level that one deserved. I already have plenty of good company in the science realm who are even on TV explaining their observations, I help support. But in this reply I can include a useful new PBS video to work from in predicting what else is possible with just (as per theory) "cellular intelligence" in a system.

As far as the theory and I are concerned Avida and such are antiquated by models that have to include Grid, Place, Border and Time cells and do well in a shock zone arena test for rat level navigational intelligence. It's nothing personal just science advancing past GA models, in part from what I'm now explaining and must get back to work on.

Total BS. You have done nothing of the sort. To start with if you have a better model the entire world would y hearting a path to your door the facts speak for themselves. Gary you are completely deluded. BTW how do you screw yourself?

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

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2014,06:43   

GG, on the one hand, alleges that the cognitive science community finds his "model" useful and interesting while at the same time whining about being left outside the candy store by the Big Science-Meanies.  He can't even keep his delusions straight.

--------------
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) < ... 331 332 333 334 335 [336] 337 338 339 340 341 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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