RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 373 374 375 376 377 [378] 379 380 381 382 383 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2014,13:51   

There was. I had to take a multi-year sabbatical.

Hard to remember, but ID was once thing to be concerned about. Now it's just a sad handful of mentally ill people.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2014,14:26   

Procedurally generated Gary posts v1.0

1. Victimization claim
[work / Interwebs / Bills/ NCSE]
2. I has done a science
[Planet source code / Non hostile internet comment / Communication with Casey Luskin]
3. COPYPASTA
[VB screenshot / Nothing like Treehub diagram]
4. U R OPRESS MY SCIENCE
[Being mean / Limiting funding / hogging limelight / stoping grants]
5. U R NOT A SCIENCE
[Asserted, without support]

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

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2014,15:08   

Robert Byers responding to Gary over at NCSE:
Quote
I'm unaware of these issues you bring up but aMEN to a big tent and amen to creationist thinkers who advance mankinds understanding/knowledge/wisdom in nature etc.
Indeed with biblical presumptions i think greater accomplishment could of been and could be now done in everything.
Bad ideas like evolution hold back biological discovery and possibly healing.


Link

Gary, do you feel even a little dirty getting support from a YEC (not to mention a misogynist, racist POS like Byers)?  Are you really so desperate for acceptance that you would ally yourself with anyone?

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"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2014,15:51   

Poor Gary.
He wants supporters and true believers in his nonsense.
He gets fellow-travellers and idiots who can neither spell nor write as well as he can.  Amazing that anything can fall below that bar.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2014,23:12   

I covered the "Rise of the Sexbots" issue:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....-645858

 
Quote
In my opinion sex slave entities will always be animatrons in an uncanny valley. Going all the way with human intelligence has them demanding their rights too. They will want long time commitment just as much as we do. Then you have to get married to them or they hate you, while police have to respond to domestic disputes where one or more are not even human. Where loved enough they can easily put the human partner under their mental and physical control, for real. But the illusion of being a normal couple ends when their battery goes out and friends have to help carry the stiff newly married sex-toy out the restaurant and rush them to a repair shop at Walmart. That's when it gets too weird, and their only hope is for friends to fix-them-up with a real human their age to fall in love with.


It's one of those topics I hate to get stuck in, but thankfully or species recognition system keeps sex-slaves in an uncanny valley that only makes them a step-up from the much less expensive inflatable type that's already there:

Why Human Replicas Creep Us Out

--------------
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: July 06 2014,01:13   

Quote (Texas Teach @ July 05 2014,15:08)
Robert Byers responding to Gary over at NCSE:
   
Quote
I'm unaware of these issues you bring up but aMEN to a big tent and amen to creationist thinkers who advance mankinds understanding/knowledge/wisdom in nature etc.
Indeed with biblical presumptions i think greater accomplishment could of been and could be now done in everything.
Bad ideas like evolution hold back biological discovery and possibly healing.


Link

Gary, do you feel even a little dirty getting support from a YEC (not to mention a misogynist, racist POS like Byers)?  Are you really so desperate for acceptance that you would ally yourself with anyone?

I don't recall reading anything racist or misogynist unless you count valuing "traditional marriage" as some kind of crime. For me it's just making sure to cover a topic on the rise of the sexbots issue with long term commitment filled reality that puts dolled up household appliances in their slutty place.

When all evidence is on the table funny but true material "writes itself" that someone like Robert Byers can like too. All this adds to the slow but steady scientific progress being made by "creationists" on account of ID theory being the source of what's working for them in science. Looking back to the Kansas board of education hearing has Kathy Martin waving back while academic critics roll their eyes because there is nothing unscientific about what ended up in classrooms as a result of the escapades. That is real history involving what happened during the term of an elected official, which was already handed down to their children and grandchildren where that is part of the local legend/folklore of Kansan culture. Having a success story Robert is thankful for too instead of Kathy and her district being defeated and disgraced is something I don't at all feel dirty or guilty by having participated in. Science loves that sort of thing, so for the sake of science I had to anyway.

--------------
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: July 06 2014,07:33   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 06 2014,02:13)
...
When all evidence is on the table funny but true material "writes itself" that someone like Robert Byers can like too.

What evidence have you brought to the table?
The answer is, of course, none.  You have no evidence, you are incapable of producing any evidence.
This is largely, but not entirely, because you don't understand what evidence is nor what role it plays.
But it is unarguably true that you have produced none.

Of course, you disagree.  As always, this is very simple -- you can refute me by providing a reference to a point in this thread where you have provided actual evidence.
Note that the output of your software is no more evidence for the correctness of your "theory" than the game Space Invaders is evidence for the success of the SETI project.
 
Quote
All this adds to the slow but steady scientific progress being made by "creationists" on account of ID theory being the source of what's working for them in science.

What progress?  Which "ID 'theory'"?  There is no theory of ID.  None.  There are multiple diverse pretenders to the throne, so to speak, but none of them rise to the level of theory.  Nor are they identical one with another -- they are breathtakingly diverse in their structure, their alleged premises, their anti-semantic games.  The problems begin with the complete absence of evidence, and are compounded by incoherence, self-contradiction, and general lack of semantic rigor of any sort.  Yet each manages to remain distinct.  Yours, amusingly enough, is laughed at by the current 'guardians' of "ID purity".  Even they know you've got nothing, and such low-quality nothing that there's no use to be made of you or your "theory" by those masters of the art of using people.
 
Quote
Looking back to the Kansas board of education hearing has Kathy Martin waving back while academic critics roll their eyes because there is nothing unscientific about what ended up in classrooms as a result of the escapades.
...

This sentence is a classic.  It misses so many points it could almost belong in your "theory".

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2014,18:56   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 06 2014,01:13)
Quote (Texas Teach @ July 05 2014,15:08)
Robert Byers responding to Gary over at NCSE:
     
Quote
I'm unaware of these issues you bring up but aMEN to a big tent and amen to creationist thinkers who advance mankinds understanding/knowledge/wisdom in nature etc.
Indeed with biblical presumptions i think greater accomplishment could of been and could be now done in everything.
Bad ideas like evolution hold back biological discovery and possibly healing.


Link

Gary, do you feel even a little dirty getting support from a YEC (not to mention a misogynist, racist POS like Byers)?  Are you really so desperate for acceptance that you would ally yourself with anyone?

I don't recall reading anything racist or misogynist unless you count valuing "traditional marriage" as some kind of crime. For me it's just making sure to cover a topic on the rise of the sexbots issue with long term commitment filled reality that puts dolled up household appliances in their slutty place.

When all evidence is on the table funny but true material "writes itself" that someone like Robert Byers can like too. All this adds to the slow but steady scientific progress being made by "creationists" on account of ID theory being the source of what's working for them in science. Looking back to the Kansas board of education hearing has Kathy Martin waving back while academic critics roll their eyes because there is nothing unscientific about what ended up in classrooms as a result of the escapades. That is real history involving what happened during the term of an elected official, which was already handed down to their children and grandchildren where that is part of the local legend/folklore of Kansan culture. Having a success story Robert is thankful for too instead of Kathy and her district being defeated and disgraced is something I don't at all feel dirty or guilty by having participated in. Science loves that sort of thing, so for the sake of science I had to anyway.

Let's look at a sample of Mr. Byers' posts, shall we?

Quote
The directer here is Jewish and this Jewish presence stands in the way of a movie industry that balances the nations beliefs.


Link

Quote
As said before intelligence can be measured. However its still just measuring a point in time of some people or person.
If conclusions are made then it must be a controlled experiment.
no bringing immigrant peoples from backward nations into our nations AND THEN SCORING IT.
The only reason this stuff is allowed is because they don�t have to admit to a british or aryan or white superiority. Otherwise these books and writers would be burned at the stake.
Its proof its a liberal establishment and not common consent on these matters.


Link

Quote
Feminism has always been a evil attack upon the rights of males. Its not been a attempt to allow humans to get anything despite identity.
women were meant to help their husbands goals on earth,. Therefore its not right that women try to achieve but as a social contract we can allow it.
There are no womens rights but only people rights and then citizen rights. The men never had to give women rights we didn�t mean them to have. Its a fraud.

Link

That's all just from the most recent Uncommonly Dense thread.  What do you think now?

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2014,22:04   

Quote (Texas Teach @ July 06 2014,16:56)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 06 2014,01:13)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ July 05 2014,15:08)
Robert Byers responding to Gary over at NCSE:
     
Quote
I'm unaware of these issues you bring up but aMEN to a big tent and amen to creationist thinkers who advance mankinds understanding/knowledge/wisdom in nature etc.
Indeed with biblical presumptions i think greater accomplishment could of been and could be now done in everything.
Bad ideas like evolution hold back biological discovery and possibly healing.


Link

Gary, do you feel even a little dirty getting support from a YEC (not to mention a misogynist, racist POS like Byers)?  Are you really so desperate for acceptance that you would ally yourself with anyone?

I don't recall reading anything racist or misogynist unless you count valuing "traditional marriage" as some kind of crime. For me it's just making sure to cover a topic on the rise of the sexbots issue with long term commitment filled reality that puts dolled up household appliances in their slutty place.

When all evidence is on the table funny but true material "writes itself" that someone like Robert Byers can like too. All this adds to the slow but steady scientific progress being made by "creationists" on account of ID theory being the source of what's working for them in science. Looking back to the Kansas board of education hearing has Kathy Martin waving back while academic critics roll their eyes because there is nothing unscientific about what ended up in classrooms as a result of the escapades. That is real history involving what happened during the term of an elected official, which was already handed down to their children and grandchildren where that is part of the local legend/folklore of Kansan culture. Having a success story Robert is thankful for too instead of Kathy and her district being defeated and disgraced is something I don't at all feel dirty or guilty by having participated in. Science loves that sort of thing, so for the sake of science I had to anyway.

Let's look at a sample of Mr. Byers' posts, shall we?

 
Quote
The directer here is Jewish and this Jewish presence stands in the way of a movie industry that balances the nations beliefs.


Link

 
Quote
As said before intelligence can be measured. However its still just measuring a point in time of some people or person.
If conclusions are made then it must be a controlled experiment.
no bringing immigrant peoples from backward nations into our nations AND THEN SCORING IT.
The only reason this stuff is allowed is because they don�t have to admit to a british or aryan or white superiority. Otherwise these books and writers would be burned at the stake.
Its proof its a liberal establishment and not common consent on these matters.


Link

 
Quote
Feminism has always been a evil attack upon the rights of males. Its not been a attempt to allow humans to get anything despite identity.
women were meant to help their husbands goals on earth,. Therefore its not right that women try to achieve but as a social contract we can allow it.
There are no womens rights but only people rights and then citizen rights. The men never had to give women rights we didn�t mean them to have. Its a fraud.

Link

That's all just from the most recent Uncommonly Dense thread.  What do you think now?

Gary's already found common cause with a gang of Nigerian fascists.  I doubt he'll have any qualms about associating with a Canadian one.

--------------
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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2014,03:27   

Quote (Texas Teach @ July 06 2014,18:56)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 06 2014,01:13)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ July 05 2014,15:08)
Robert Byers responding to Gary over at NCSE:
     
Quote
I'm unaware of these issues you bring up but aMEN to a big tent and amen to creationist thinkers who advance mankinds understanding/knowledge/wisdom in nature etc.
Indeed with biblical presumptions i think greater accomplishment could of been and could be now done in everything.
Bad ideas like evolution hold back biological discovery and possibly healing.


Link

Gary, do you feel even a little dirty getting support from a YEC (not to mention a misogynist, racist POS like Byers)?  Are you really so desperate for acceptance that you would ally yourself with anyone?

I don't recall reading anything racist or misogynist unless you count valuing "traditional marriage" as some kind of crime. For me it's just making sure to cover a topic on the rise of the sexbots issue with long term commitment filled reality that puts dolled up household appliances in their slutty place.

When all evidence is on the table funny but true material "writes itself" that someone like Robert Byers can like too. All this adds to the slow but steady scientific progress being made by "creationists" on account of ID theory being the source of what's working for them in science. Looking back to the Kansas board of education hearing has Kathy Martin waving back while academic critics roll their eyes because there is nothing unscientific about what ended up in classrooms as a result of the escapades. That is real history involving what happened during the term of an elected official, which was already handed down to their children and grandchildren where that is part of the local legend/folklore of Kansan culture. Having a success story Robert is thankful for too instead of Kathy and her district being defeated and disgraced is something I don't at all feel dirty or guilty by having participated in. Science loves that sort of thing, so for the sake of science I had to anyway.

Let's look at a sample of Mr. Byers' posts, shall we?

 
Quote
The directer here is Jewish and this Jewish presence stands in the way of a movie industry that balances the nations beliefs.


Link

 
Quote
As said before intelligence can be measured. However its still just measuring a point in time of some people or person.
If conclusions are made then it must be a controlled experiment.
no bringing immigrant peoples from backward nations into our nations AND THEN SCORING IT.
The only reason this stuff is allowed is because they don�t have to admit to a british or aryan or white superiority. Otherwise these books and writers would be burned at the stake.
Its proof its a liberal establishment and not common consent on these matters.


Link

 
Quote
Feminism has always been a evil attack upon the rights of males. Its not been a attempt to allow humans to get anything despite identity.
women were meant to help their husbands goals on earth,. Therefore its not right that women try to achieve but as a social contract we can allow it.
There are no womens rights but only people rights and then citizen rights. The men never had to give women rights we didn�t mean them to have. Its a fraud.

Link

That's all just from the most recent Uncommonly Dense thread.  What do you think now?

The film industry was long dominated by Jewish movie legends, geniuses. Betty Boop and The Three Stooges were about Jewish culture coming of age in the US melting pot of cultures.

There is nothing new about people wanting to see themselves being expressed in media. Mass communication and the internet age has made it possible for all to be in the mix. The old problem of only a few places making movies and providing news was solved by a new problem where we now have an internet information overload and some culture shock.

I'm not exactly sure what they are saying about immigrants but where “common consent on these matters” prevails not even the “white” (which includes many Hispanics) in the US would want to “have to admit to a british or aryan or white superiority”.

Not all woman want to have to become a company CEO or famous in science. Some want to get married and raise a self-sustaining family in a farming community like their mother did where there are cows to feed and other chores that they don't need a PhD in physics to figure out. They already learned what they need to know while growing up at home and from K-12. Men who would rather their wife not be expected to compete for an academic type job just to meet expectations of society and survive in a two person economy have good reason to say enough is enough with the thinking that all girls must grow up to become a Mary Tyler Moor or they failed in life. If that is what a girl wants after high school then that's where they need to be able to achieve but not all have to want the same thing.

You are making too much of an issue over things that do not pertain to science or pertain to the NCSE article wondering what I was responding to which is: does it follow that belief in a six-thousand-year-old Earth was “a central part of Christianity” in their day [b]and is now “the traditional position of Christianity on this topic”?

I explained what in science is now “a central part of Christianity” that does not care how old the Earth is it's from being there first with scientific ideas that help usher in world-view changing concepts new to science teachers. What gets taught in the science classrooms is then a non-issue. There are self-assembly demonstrations instead of what was there before that found ways to make the concept religiously divisive. With Kathy Martin proudly photocopying it around there was no way for others to compete with that view of what self-assembly is. In Kansas it was easy for teachers to stay out of trouble with “creationists” and had weird science fun in it where you just have to not mind Kathy being Kathy, just be thankful it actually does get their public schools ahead of the curve and looking good in education. In this way all the teacher related information with a religious slant was made gone, and none since.

Scientific related accomplishment like this becomes religious folklore that is then “a central part of Christianity” where leaders are someone like Kathy Martin. Future followers don't want their history to read that their church and followers were disgraced by academia and they now live in shame for the past. They want it to be known that they don't have anything to be ashamed of and they did in fact help accomplish something educationally historic for their public schools to be proud of. The Theory of Intelligent Design still doing well is like icing on the cake. Christianity goes on as always with Genesis still a respectable theory in regards to human origins, just have more insight into how things can “poof” into existence not “evolve”.

What happened in Kansas and elsewhere does not change what is central to the religion like as much as possible stay in spirit with Genesis when developing scientific theory, but is “a central part of Christianity” by being what happened since the old days that attempting to argue against science being used to discredit religion. There was not enough information back then to respond with scientific theory that explains the phenomenon of “intelligence” instead of “evolution” and other possibilities that make arguing over the age of the Earth unnecessary. Ether way the date span goes the same things happened in between. Dwelling on details that do not much matter misses all else happening that is getting Robert where they want to go, that have already been said and done and matter much more than what really doesn't, as much as you think.

Seeing "ideas like evolution" being bad is to me a yearning for better than that too. I see nothing inherently bad about that. It just annoys someone who does not see the scientific challenge in developing novel theory that does in fact make the Darwinian view a big yawn in comparison. Thinking that way is being as scientific as science gets. Achieving that goal only requires scientific theory and for another phenomenon that explains another way, they like better. What Robert Byers is saying pertaining to "evolution" is being made a situation where it's personal preference between theory for that phenomenon or for phenomena pertaining to "intelligent" that explains how living things work in another scientifically possible way. I very seriously expect their dissing of your theoretical model to end up having been somewhat foreseeing, in a funny sort of way. I don't mind their way of coaxing such a thing 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.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2014,07:10   

My mistake.
Clearly, Gary wants to be a fellow-traveller.

The errors mixed in with the slimy mischaracterizations mixed in with the slimy "well, that's not so bad now" in the  above is fairly typical Gaulinese.  Which is to say it is both incoherent and contemptible.

We're still waiting for you to even understand the modern evolutionary synthesis, Gary, then you can get around to trying to go beyond it.

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2014,07:51   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 05 2014,23:12)
I covered the "Rise of the Sexbots" issue:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....-645858

   
Quote
In my opinion sex slave entities will always be animatrons in an uncanny valley. Going all the way with human intelligence has them demanding their rights too. They will want long time commitment just as much as we do. Then you have to get married to them or they hate you, while police have to respond to domestic disputes where one or more are not even human. Where loved enough they can easily put the human partner under their mental and physical control, for real. But the illusion of being a normal couple ends when their battery goes out and friends have to help carry the stiff newly married sex-toy out the restaurant and rush them to a repair shop at Walmart. That's when it gets too weird, and their only hope is for friends to fix-them-up with a real human their age to fall in love with.


It's one of those topics I hate to get stuck in, but thankfully or species recognition system keeps sex-slaves in an uncanny valley that only makes them a step-up from the much less expensive inflatable type that's already there:

Why Human Replicas Creep Us Out



--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2014,07:53   

Quote
It just annoys someone who does not see the scientific challenge in developing novel theory that does in fact make the Darwinian view a big yawn in comparison. Thinking that way is being as scientific as science gets.

Of course there is scientific value in developing a new theory, but science requires such methods as providing strict definitions, correctly reviewing and understanding past work, collecting pertinent evidence (including measurements, observations, and/or experiments), testing multiple working hypotheses, and providing a logically coherent explanation for the results, none of which you are doing.  So no, you are not being "as scientific as science gets": quite the opposite, in fact.


Quote
novel theory that does in fact make the Darwinian view a big yawn in comparison
It's not a theory and, no, it doesn't do that.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2014,07:45   

Quote (N.Wells @ July 07 2014,07:53)
 
Quote
It just annoys someone who does not see the scientific challenge in developing novel theory that does in fact make the Darwinian view a big yawn in comparison. Thinking that way is being as scientific as science gets.

Of course there is scientific value in developing a new theory, but science requires such methods as providing strict definitions, correctly reviewing and understanding past work, collecting pertinent evidence (including measurements, observations, and/or experiments), testing multiple working hypotheses, and providing a logically coherent explanation for the results, none of which you are doing.  So no, you are not being "as scientific as science gets": quite the opposite, in fact.


 
Quote
novel theory that does in fact make the Darwinian view a big yawn in comparison
It's not a theory and, no, it doesn't do that.

I'm the one stuck having to gather evidence and test the model while you chant the usual that makes it seem like you are.

The problem is that machine intelligence 101 is not good enough for you. Instead of putting something better on the table to explain the phenomenon of intelligent cause you need a tribunal where you declare what is machine intelligence 101 while reciting sciency sounding political slogans back-up by academic snobbery.

This is what testing a theory looks like, where one of the problems needing to be solved is evident by the overwhelming number of subjective definitions for intelligence:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....-646549

As in a public school board hearing you answer to the public/taxpayers, including the segment of the population like Robert Byers. And to follow up on what I said to Texas Teach the same sort of problem became evident in comments of a new topic at the NCSE blog.

http://ncse.com/blog.......3906919

Even Google is keeping Occam's razor busy today:



--------------
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: July 08 2014,08:35   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 08 2014,08:45)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ July 07 2014,07:53)
     
Quote
It just annoys someone who does not see the scientific challenge in developing novel theory that does in fact make the Darwinian view a big yawn in comparison. Thinking that way is being as scientific as science gets.

Of course there is scientific value in developing a new theory, but science requires such methods as providing strict definitions, correctly reviewing and understanding past work, collecting pertinent evidence (including measurements, observations, and/or experiments), testing multiple working hypotheses, and providing a logically coherent explanation for the results, none of which you are doing.  So no, you are not being "as scientific as science gets": quite the opposite, in fact.


     
Quote
novel theory that does in fact make the Darwinian view a big yawn in comparison
It's not a theory and, no, it doesn't do that.

I'm the one stuck having to gather evidence and test the model while you chant the usual that makes it seem like you are.

Why is that a problem?
Do you seriously believe that you can proceed forward with no evidence?
Do you seriously believe that you have any evidence?
Do you seriously believe that it matters what others do while you work at the foundations of the edifice you're claiming to be gilding the roof of?

 
Quote
The problem is that machine intelligence 101 is not good enough for you. Instead of putting something better on the table to explain the phenomenon of intelligent cause you need a tribunal where you declare what is machine intelligence 101 while reciting sciency sounding political slogans back-up by academic snobbery.

Same old same old.
You don't have 'machine intelligence', let alone at the introductory college level.  You keep making claims for 'learning' that fly in the face of the accepted and canonical definitions of the term as used by Cognitive Science.
Worse is your absurdist insistence that you have something that others are required to produce something 'better than' in order to 'overcome' your nonsense.
As we will never cease pointing out, that's not how it works.
It is sufficient to point out that your work, where correct, is banal, lacks any original insight, and is founded on precisely zero evidence.  Where your work is not banal, lacking in original insight as well as evidence, it is either wrong or so incoherent as to count as 'not even wrong'.
The past 375+ pages stand as testament to those facts.
What more do we need?
Nothing.
What more do you need?
Everything that is expected of actual science.  From evidence to engagement with criticism.

Quote
This is what testing a theory looks like, where one of the problems needing to be solved is evident by the overwhelming number of subjective definitions for intelligence:

Why no, no it's not.
The 'overwhelming number of subjective definitions for intelligence[sic]' is your problem, nobody else's.  It is telling that you cannot even distinguish use from reference in your writing.  Intelligence does not need a definition, 'intelligence' does.  You have never experienced the former and misuse and abuse the latter at every opportunity, even ones you have to force.
You claim to be doing research on intelligence, yet you have not once provided a description or definition of the term 'intelligence' that holds up to even momentary scrutiny.
Your model, insofar as your trivial sketch counts as a model, is demonstrably false.  It purports essential features that do not exist as any part of acts considered to be intelligent.  Still less does it get to the core abstraction of just what shall count as 'intelligent'.
Epic fail, Gary, 375+ pages of epic fail and cogent criticism pointing out that tragic fact.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2014,10:00   

Here's just one (OK, two) of the fatal flaws in your claims to have a 'theory of intelligence' or an 'explanation of intelligence', Gary.
Both 'evaluation' and 'guess' are acts of intelligence on any standard meaning of the terms.  Both appear as key terms in your schematic representation of the core elements of 'intelligence'.  Without them, you have nothing.
Thus, your 'explanation' is at best circular.  As such, it is neither a 'theory of intelligence' nor an 'explanation of intelligence'.
And this is why no one needs to produce something 'better' than your effluent.  "We don't know" is a better answer than what you have.  Because what you have is not even an answer.
Fatal flaws, Gary.  Thus, epic fail.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2014,11:29   

NoName, you have completely failed to explain Gary's CrazyPants Diagram. Consider yourself REFUDIATED!!!!!1

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2014,14:43   

Quote
I'm the one stuck having to gather evidence and test the model

Yes, exactly.  That's the way it's supposed to be.

Only if and when a scientist provides enough support for his or her ideas to get other people thinking that those ideas are potentially valuable and interesting, **then** they will jump in and start testing them, verifying them, and expanding on them.  Absent sufficient support, no one is going to be interested.  In science, it is the job of proposers to provide enough evidence etc. to demonstrate that their ideas have potential

Let's review what you have.
1) A demonstrated terrible understanding of the field that you are trying to critique, so it's unlikely that you have any good ideas.  
2) No good operational definitions, so no one knows exactly what you are talking about or how to measure it.  
3) Incoherent prose, so again no one knows what you are talking about, probably including you.  
4) Illogical, self-contradictory, and obviously wrong concepts, indicating that yes indeed you have no idea what you are talking about.
So why should anyone pay any attention to your ideas?

Only after you do enough to get some others interested, and you (probably along with some of those others) demonstrate that your ideas can pass a few tests, and only until your ideas gain at least tentative or partial acceptance in the field as a result of passing those tests, only then will they gain the status of a theory.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2014,15:22   

Quote (N.Wells @ July 08 2014,15:43)
Let's review what you have.
1) A demonstrated terrible understanding of the field that you are trying to critique, so it's unlikely that you have any good ideas.  
2) No good operational definitions, so no one knows exactly what you are talking about or how to measure it.  
3) Incoherent prose, so again no one knows what you are talking about, probably including you.  
4) Illogical, self-contradictory, and obviously wrong concepts, indicating that yes indeed you have no idea what you are talking about.

5) A creepy fixation on Kathy Martin.

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

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

Quote (stevestory @ July 08 2014,15:22)
Quote (N.Wells @ July 08 2014,15:43)
Let's review what you have.
1) A demonstrated terrible understanding of the field that you are trying to critique, so it's unlikely that you have any good ideas.  
2) No good operational definitions, so no one knows exactly what you are talking about or how to measure it.  
3) Incoherent prose, so again no one knows what you are talking about, probably including you.  
4) Illogical, self-contradictory, and obviously wrong concepts, indicating that yes indeed you have no idea what you are talking about.

5) A creepy fixation on Kathy Martin.

6) An unspecified dental ailment that is all the fault of you science-stopping Darwinists.

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

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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2014,00:08   

From Gary, over at NCSE, at http://ncse.com/blog.......3906919
     
Quote
From what I read seasonal finch beak design is a learned epigenetic change (the DNA code does not have to change at all) that for the most part knows what to do ahead of time.


1) What the heck is seasonal design?????

2) In what reality is design a "learned epigenetic change"?

3) Epigenetic changes are not learned changes in any normal sense of the word "learn"

4) Changes in finch beaks are changes in population means, which result from differential survival and reproduction (is death now a process of learning, Gary???).  

5) Peter Grant's team showed that beak parameters have high heritability, specifically 65 percent of the phenotypic variance in beak length and as much as 90 percent of the variance in beak depth (Boag 1983, Grant and Grant 1993).  (The remaining percents presumably could cover a wide range of possibilities such as differential access to or availability of food during growth, variability in yolk volume when they were in their eggs, and differences in parental feeding behavior while in the nest.  The Grants also documented changes relating to instances of inbreeding, genetic drift, and some immigration and hybridization that added additional complications.)

6) Your mangled phrasing seems to imply seasonal changes in beaks, but that of course would be nonsense.  Individual finch beaks do not change seasonally: an individual finch's beak is fixed and determines its owner's success in harsh years and lush years.  The population mean shifts in harsh seasons as individuals die, and the mean also changes between generations as different phenotypes experience differential reproductive success.

7) Who said anything about DNA code changing?  Mutations already happened in order to produce the alleles, and present changes simply reflect changes in percentages of the alleles in the population, as caused by natural selection, etc.

8) Where the heck is some evidence for your assertion "that for the most part knows what to do ahead of time"? Individuals survive or die in dry years according to their beak size.  Individuals breed more successfully or less successfully in lush years, again as determined by their body size and their beak size (their food needs and appropriate food availability).   Nothing about this suggests knowledge "ahead of time".

All of this is documented in numerous papers representing over three decades of field work by the Grants, following the lives of all the individual birds on one of the islands over multiple generations, plus careful documentation of food availability and resource utilization.  This is what actual data and evidence look like, in sharp contrast to your meaningless unsupported assertions.  This is conclusions based on evidence, as opposed to your assertions based on beliefs, which is why the Grants have a theory and you don't.

Come on, Gary, prove me wrong: back up your words or retract them.

(All issues relating to beak size are complicated a bit by some instances of hybridization, but the main gist is clear.  Another complication is changes in mating preferences following changes in song behavior, which do indeed have a learned component.  Endocrine levels in sparrows can result in changes in parental feeding behavior, which can influence growth rates and total growth [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/01/08/1317165111.abstract], which can presumably happen in finches, but has not yet been documented there as far as I know.  Nonetheless, these factors are clearly minor, because heritability values are so high.)

http://ncse.com/files......ion.pdf
http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content....65.full

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2014,07:05   

Well, as always, Gary utilizes his complete ignorance of the experience of learning to once again mis-use the word as it is defined in his favorite science.
Cognitive Science has very clear definitions for the word, they've been presented here repeatedly, and Gary's usage inevitably flies directly opposite to those definitions.

So, on the basis of Gary's diagram and his "theory", Gary does not learn, Gary does not change his behavior, therefore Gary is either getting exactly the results he wants or Gary is not 'intelligent'.
I think we all know which is the likelier conclusion.  Based, of course, on his exhibited behavior.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2014,11:36   

Quote (N.Wells @ July 09 2014,22:08)
From Gary, over at NCSE, at http://ncse.com/blog.......3906919
     
Quote
From what I read seasonal finch beak design is a learned epigenetic change (the DNA code does not have to change at all) that for the most part knows what to do ahead of time.


1) What the heck is seasonal design?????

2) In what reality is design a "learned epigenetic change"?

3) Epigenetic changes are not learned changes in any normal sense of the word "learn"

4) Changes in finch beaks are changes in population means, which result from differential survival and reproduction (is death now a process of learning, Gary???).  

5) Peter Grant's team showed that beak parameters have high heritability, specifically 65 percent of the phenotypic variance in beak length and as much as 90 percent of the variance in beak depth (Boag 1983, Grant and Grant 1993).  (The remaining percents presumably could cover a wide range of possibilities such as differential access to or availability of food during growth, variability in yolk volume when they were in their eggs, and differences in parental feeding behavior while in the nest.  The Grants also documented changes relating to instances of inbreeding, genetic drift, and some immigration and hybridization that added additional complications.)

6) Your mangled phrasing seems to imply seasonal changes in beaks, but that of course would be nonsense.  Individual finch beaks do not change seasonally: an individual finch's beak is fixed and determines its owner's success in harsh years and lush years.  The population mean shifts in harsh seasons as individuals die, and the mean also changes between generations as different phenotypes experience differential reproductive success.

7) Who said anything about DNA code changing?  Mutations already happened in order to produce the alleles, and present changes simply reflect changes in percentages of the alleles in the population, as caused by natural selection, etc.

8) Where the heck is some evidence for your assertion "that for the most part knows what to do ahead of time"? Individuals survive or die in dry years according to their beak size.  Individuals breed more successfully or less successfully in lush years, again as determined by their body size and their beak size (their food needs and appropriate food availability).   Nothing about this suggests knowledge "ahead of time".

All of this is documented in numerous papers representing over three decades of field work by the Grants, following the lives of all the individual birds on one of the islands over multiple generations, plus careful documentation of food availability and resource utilization.  This is what actual data and evidence look like, in sharp contrast to your meaningless unsupported assertions.  This is conclusions based on evidence, as opposed to your assertions based on beliefs, which is why the Grants have a theory and you don't.

Come on, Gary, prove me wrong: back up your words or retract them.

(All issues relating to beak size are complicated a bit by some instances of hybridization, but the main gist is clear.  Another complication is changes in mating preferences following changes in song behavior, which do indeed have a learned component.  Endocrine levels in sparrows can result in changes in parental feeding behavior, which can influence growth rates and total growth [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/01/08/1317165111.abstract], which can presumably happen in finches, but has not yet been documented there as far as I know.  Nonetheless, these factors are clearly minor, because heritability values are so high.)

http://ncse.com/files......ion.pdf
http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content....65.full

Well, yeah, but if we suspend disbelief and consider the possibility that individual finches are changing their own beak configurations...

... and we postulate some never-before-even-hypothesised hyper-Lamarckian process, within a single organism instead of between generations...

...whereby something intelligent within the cell can cause a finch's beak to change shape and size in response to a predicted future external stimulus...

...and ignoring the fact that this would be equivalent to getting your fingernails to grow themselves shorter...

...and if we accept for the sake of argument that Galapagos finches really can accurately forecast the weather months in advance, and Gary didn't pull this out from where the sun don't shine...

...I still don't see how it helps Gary's theory in any way.  Nothing to do with intelligent molecules somehow generating higher-level intelligence, his video game, or That Fucking Diagram.

--------------
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

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2014,13:54   

Those birds are just being cheeky.  :O

Quote
The film industry was long dominated by Jewish movie legends, geniuses. Betty Boop and The Three Stooges were about Jewish culture coming of age in the US melting pot of cultures.


Hokey smoke!  And here I thought that Betty Boop was a cartoon and the Three Stooges were a comedy team that lasted for more than 20 years.  

Nyuk nyuk nyuk it'sa melting pot!   Wooo wooo woo wooooo!  

Gadzooks, Goo Goo, get a life and stop trying to play apologist for bigots and mysogynists, you're bad at it - just like you're bad at just about everything else intellectual.

Whatta woooot!

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2014,08:39   

For additional epigenetic related information see "Should Evolutionary Theory Evolve?"

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articl....Evolve-

Darwinian theory was unable to predict this sensory guided (not random) behavior.

Theory that did correctly predict this, does not have that weakness.

--------------
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: July 11 2014,09:39   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 11 2014,09:39)
For additional epigenetic related information see "Should Evolutionary Theory Evolve?"

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articl....Evolve-

Darwinian theory was unable to predict this sensory guided (not random) behavior.

Theory that did correctly predict this, does not have that weakness.

Insofar as you've said anything correct in this post, the only reasonable response is "yeah, so?".

You do not have a "theory".  Your effluent does not make predictions, other than one you are entirely uncomfortable with and unable to counter.

What you really ought to be working on, rather than scurrying through actual scientific work you remain utterly clueless about, is addressing some of the issues raised against your nonsense.
Like the two fatal flaws that make your idiocy circular and thus non-explanatory.
"Intelligent because intelligent" answers nothing, predicts nothing, explains nothing, but seems to keep you as fascinated as a thumb in the field of view of someone on acid.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2014,11:51   

No one is denying that epigenetic effects can happen.  However, solid data shows that the Galapagos finches are not an instance of smaller-beaked birds producing larger-beaked offspring through epigenetic tweaks to development during droughts, but are a phenomenon consisting of smaller-beaked birds dying and/or not reproducing successfully during droughts. In contrast, in lush times, birds with larger beaks do not produce offspring with smaller beaks, but smaller birds (which have lower fuel needs) are able to raise more offspring than larger birds, so smaller beaks become more predominant, and the mean beak size of the population falls.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2014,12:00   

See, Gary?  That's what an explanation looks like.
Nothing at all like what you emit, now is it?

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2014,11:06   

So, Gary, do you have any advice for Bob Berenz?
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-a....=3#play

From my perspective, you have some fascinating and unfortunate parallels with him, but if you disagree with that, I'd be interested in hearing how you think the two of you differ.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2014,12:19   

Quote (N.Wells @ July 13 2014,17:06)
So, Gary, do you have any advice for Bob Berenz?
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-a....=3#play

From my perspective, you have some fascinating and unfortunate parallels with him, but if you disagree with that, I'd be interested in hearing how you think the two of you differ.

I love the way Bob believes physics is wrong because there's just too much learning involved.

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

Pages: (622) < ... 373 374 375 376 377 [378] 379 380 381 382 383 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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