RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 375 376 377 378 379 [380] 381 382 383 384 385 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2014,01:22   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 13 2014,20:53)
Now Star Trek is being used as a scientific authority.

It's rather shameful for academics who claim to be defending science to be going along with ignorant trash like this.

Holy shit are you dense.  Star Trek was used to mock you, you lackwit.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2014,01:31   

Now we are back to the Darwinian version of the "God did it" answer that instead reduces down to "Natural selection did it".

The question of how living genomes can successfully learn over time is being left up to the imagination, by speaking in generalizations that avoid having to go into any detail at all.

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2014,01:32   

Quote (N.Wells @ July 14 2014,00:53)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 14 2014,00:44)
Goalposts were again moved, away from what Darwinian Theory failed to predict, to the usual red-herring excuses from the so-called science defenders.

No - you wrongly asserted that changes in Darwin's finches' beaks are best explained by epigenetic effects (because you don't like natural selection), and the data shows that you are very wrong, and that natural selection provides an excellent explanation of what happened, in line with Darwin's predictions.  You've been frantically trying to shift goalposts ever since.

Along with ignoring all the issues relating to poor old Bob.

And ignoring all the criticisms of your work that NoName and I and others have been raising since the beginning of this whole thread.

So  what would you do if you were in Bob's unfortunate position?

Now we are back to the Darwinian version of the "God did it" answer that instead reduces down to "Natural selection did it".

The question of how living genomes can successfully learn over time is being left up to the imagination, by speaking in generalizations that avoid having to go into any detail at all.

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2014,01:35   

Quote (didymos @ July 14 2014,01:22)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 13 2014,20:53)
Now Star Trek is being used as a scientific authority.

It's rather shameful for academics who claim to be defending science to be going along with ignorant trash like this.

Holy shit are you dense.  Star Trek was used to mock you, you lackwit.

And you are as scientifically dysfunctional as the NoName troll.

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

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2014,05:41   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 14 2014,09:32)
Quote (N.Wells @ July 14 2014,00:53)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 14 2014,00:44)
Goalposts were again moved, away from what Darwinian Theory failed to predict, to the usual red-herring excuses from the so-called science defenders.

No - you wrongly asserted that changes in Darwin's finches' beaks are best explained by epigenetic effects (because you don't like natural selection), and the data shows that you are very wrong, and that natural selection provides an excellent explanation of what happened, in line with Darwin's predictions.  You've been frantically trying to shift goalposts ever since.

Along with ignoring all the issues relating to poor old Bob.

And ignoring all the criticisms of your work that NoName and I and others have been raising since the beginning of this whole thread.

So  what would you do if you were in Bob's unfortunate position?

Now we are back to the Darwinian version of the "God did it" answer that instead reduces down to "Natural selection did it".

The question of how living genomes can successfully learn over time is being left up to the imagination, by speaking in generalizations that avoid having to go into any detail at all.

They didn't learn you fool they were selected. It is you that has a learning problem and an ego to go with it.

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

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2014,07:00   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 14 2014,02:31)
Now we are back to the Darwinian version of the "God did it" answer that instead reduces down to "Natural selection did it".

The question of how living genomes can successfully learn over time is being left up to the imagination, by speaking in generalizations that avoid having to go into any detail at all.

There's one of your core errors, right there.
I've bolded it, so you can easily see it.
Genomes do not learn.  You are misusing a term from your favorite science.  Cognitive Science has been fairly precise in defining the term 'learn' and it's variant, and your usage of the term flies in the face of the actual definition.
You are not just abusing the term, you are mangling and contradicting the concept.  You're talking about a phenomenon that is precisely not learning.

And then of course there is your complete and utter incompetence at comprehending explanations, what they are and how they work.  Natural selection is a well-understood, demonstrable, process.  It explains the changes in finch beaks over time.
Your effluent, on the other hand, wants to insert a 'sensory' component into the process, without rationale or justification.  Your absurdities want simple physical and chemical phenomena to fall under the rubric of 'learning' when there is no learning whatsoever going on at the level of chemical reactions.  You have even agreed to this, within the last 20 pages or so, yet you have not demonstrated that you actually understand the fact nor its implications for your notions.

We've been over this repeatedly, and you still ignore the facts on the ground, the explanatory frameworks that structure the facts into theories, that generate predictions and fruitful research, and that instantiate the body of scientific results.
Rather than comprehend, you whine about 'moving goalposts', despite doing this constantly yourself, you whinge about 'science stoppers' while never doing a lick of science yourself, you complain about your lies, errors, evasions, contradictions, conceptual conclusions, and overall incoherency being pointed out as if they were attacks on you.  We're not so much attacking you as we are the toxic effluent you spew.  We find you contemptible for your behavior, but that's outside the realm of our critique of your utterly failed attempts at doing science.

Repeating your errors endlessly can be used, within the constraints of your absurd 'theory', to demonstrate that you do not count as 'intelligent'.  You have yet to step up to the task of showing how this conclusion is based on mistaken understanding or use of your notions, nor have you shown how, despite the claims of your 'theory', you are, in fact, 'intelligent' in the terms of your 'theory.
Note that the word 'intelligent' is placed in scare quotes above because this is a purely formal argument -- it does not rest on whatever the hell it is that you mean by the term.  Insofar as you have produced a schematic representation that purports to provide foundational structural elements of 'intelligence', whatever that might be, your own behavior places you outside the logical limits you yourself delineate.
That's beyond pathetic.  And utterly rock-solid logically unassailable -- which is why you have never tried to challenge it, devastating though it is to you, your notions, and your tragic career across the internet for far too many  years.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2014,07:13   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 14 2014,02:35)
Quote (didymos @ July 14 2014,01:22)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 13 2014,20:53)
Now Star Trek is being used as a scientific authority.

It's rather shameful for academics who claim to be defending science to be going along with ignorant trash like this.

Holy shit are you dense.  Star Trek was used to mock you, you lackwit.

And you are as scientifically dysfunctional as the NoName troll.

You are as inept at identifying trolls as you are at identifying examples of learning.  Perhaps that's another word whose definition escapes you?

You are equally inept at recognizing examples and the role they play in explanations.
Yet you want to claim that recent work on epigenetics is an example of something 'predicted' by your "theory".

You are a buffoon.  And we all see it, even, I suspect, you.

It is so convenient for you to fall back on attacks, lies, and the usual evasions, deflections, distractions, and red herrings rather than actually to address any of the countless faults found with your "theory" by myself and countless others.  Your effluent is a rich error-mine, it takes virtually no effort to pull out contradictions, confusions, errors, fatal logical implications (in the strong sense of the term) and thus to dispose of your life's work in multiple ways for multiple reasons.
What you have is the exact opposite of science.  The work of science reinforces itself throughout, forming an ever more rigorous, ever more interconnected, ever better founded body of knowledge of the world and the way it works.
What you have produced is a collection of assorted incoherent and frequently contradictory statements and assertions, with zero evidence, each of which conflicts with other statements in the work, none of which support any other statements other than by blatant assertion with neither logic nor evidence in the process, leading to a mishmash of ignorance about the world and the way it works.

Were you slightly more capable of writing standard English, at, say, the level of a sixth grader, had you slightly more skill at masking your evasions, lack of evidence, lack of logic, and the brutal abuse of the standard terms of science, you would be toxic.  As it is, you are merely disgusting.

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2014,07:34   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 13 2014,23:35)
Quote (didymos @ July 14 2014,01:22)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 13 2014,20:53)
Now Star Trek is being used as a scientific authority.

It's rather shameful for academics who claim to be defending science to be going along with ignorant trash like this.

Holy shit are you dense.  Star Trek was used to mock you, you lackwit.

And you are as scientifically dysfunctional as the NoName troll.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2014,09:10   

It's like some never grew up.

--------------
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 14 2014,09:22   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 14 2014,10:10)
It's like some never grew up.

That's what we've been telling you for years.  About yourself.
Grow up.
Grow a pair and respond to your critics.

Instead, you stand on the sidelines, insisting that it's the center, and fling poo at all and sundry.

"Troll" does not mean "someone who has proved Gary wrong".  Just as 'learn' does not mean what you pervert it to mean.

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2014,09:28   

You know, I misread that as a question from Gary, so my reply doesn't really make much sense.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2014,09:35   

Quote (didymos @ July 14 2014,10:28)
You know, I misread that as a question from Gary, so my reply doesn't really make much sense.

More sense than anything Gary has ever written.

But, then, that's an awfully low bar to clear ;-\
The adults among us got it.

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2014,10:38   

Quote
Now we are back to the Darwinian version of the "God did it" answer that instead reduces down to "Natural selection did it".


Except that 'God did it' doesn't have any proof, but 'Natural selection did it' does.  

Goalposts planted and proven not to move.  Goo Goo fails again.

WHAT A failed everything else so has to be A HOOT!!!  :)

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2014,10:44   

Gary's so good at finding failure modes, perhaps he should go into software testing.  Partnered with someone to stop him each time he finds a failure so he doesn't go on to trumpet it as the latest breakthrough in innovation of course.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2014,11:30   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 14 2014,15:10)
It's like some never grew up.

Says the man dragging a Planet Source Code badge around like a security blanket.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2014,12:58   

Quote (NoName @ July 14 2014,09:22)

Instead, you stand on the sidelines, insisting that it's the center, and fling poo at all and sundry.

He's
(out standing in his field)

He's not even in the same time zone as the sidelines.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2014,13:54   

True enough.
Quite possibly not even in the same universe.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2014,16:18   

Like the poster of the mountain goat alone on a hillside.

"He's so far behind he thinks he's first."

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

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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2014,12:24   

Following on from posts by Sparc, Socle, and Woodbine on the Uncommonly Dense thread:

From http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....extbook


About Eric Postrada, the author of the book just mentioned, according to his autobiography at Amazon, at http://www.amazon.com/Edgar-P...._pel_1:    
Quote
Edgar A. Postrado was born in the Philippines (1966) with civil Engineering Degree from National University, Manila. He discovered: the real Intelligent Design, the real "intelligence" and its elusive nature, discoverer and promoter of Biological Interrelation or Interrelation Theory (replacement to the Theory of Evolution), promoter of the new powerful categorization method in naturalistic science, discoverer of the new and testable Theory of Intelligence, and solver or giver to some of the most unsolved mysteries in naturalistic science in origin's topic, like physics, biology, psychology, philosophy, mathematics, religion etc.


He has actually published a series of books in the last year, including:
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down
Biology Of Intelligent Design
Physics of Intelligent Design
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design
Atheism and Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design Explains Life's Difficult Questions
Psychology Of Intelligent Design

Eric explained,          
Quote
This is my public report to scientific community and to the world about my new discoveries in real intelligence and real Intelligent Design. This is probably an unconventional way of publishing scientific discoveries instead of peer-reviews in scientific journals. Though I tried submitting some articles twice and failed but most of the contents of his book were adversarially reviewed and severely criticized in many online scientific discussion forums by many resident scientists on that forums. Since the new discoveries are still unbeaten and unrefuted, thus, I have more confidence that my new discoveries are scientifically correct and sound, thus, I am publishing them here in this book. A book is a very logical answer for me to explain all of the details of my new discoveries. Thank you.


So, Gary, this raises a whole series of interesting questions regarding your own work.

First, you have insisted that since you have offered an "improved" version of ID, all subsequent usage of the phrase "Intelligent Design" must incorporate your version of intelligent design or it is wrong.  Since Edgar's version is more recent than yours (AND is even broader in scope than yours*, AND is actually published in book form, even if that is self-published), doesn't that mean that your version is now wrong because it doesn't incorporate all his ideas?

Second, you incessantly insist that since you have some up with a purportedly newer and more expansive explanation than standard evolutionary theory that it is now the responsibility of all scientists in the vicinity to drop what they are doing and work on your theory, both improving it, putting it into better English, and thinking up and running tests for it, does it not follow that you should now set aside all your own rubbish and get to work on Edgar's ideas?

Third, since Edgar writes in somewhat the same way that you do and since you rarely seem to understand regularly-written stuff given the frequency that you mangle what people write, do you find Edgar's writings easier to understand or harder to understand than regular prose?

I can't wait to hear your reaction to this newer and purportedly better version of ID.

Also, what's your advice to poor old Bob Berenz, as you still haven't gotten around to addressing the issues that he raises?


- - - -
*In case you doubt that his version of ID is more expansive than yours (broad though yours is), here is Edgar on the contributions that his version makes to physics alone:    
Quote
The world needs a new science new and explanations. This is it! This is the book that will settle most, if not all, unsolved mysteries in Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Astronomy, Cosmology and their related fields, as seen from the side of Intelligent Design and from reality. The Intelligent Design that you will be reading here, that will explain many unsolved mysteries in Physics, is the new Intelligent Design that is too far different from the old Intelligent Design (ID). The big difference is that the old ID has no definition of the real intelligence and no categorization method to differentiate between a naturally made object (naturen) to intelligently designed object (intellen). (The old ID talks about “complexity”, “information”, “specified complexity”, “irreducible complexity” and “complex specified information” and the old ID did not even touch “intelligence”).

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2014,13:39   

Hey Gary, check out this bit from the blurb of Atheism and Intelligent Design....



Can your theory distinguish intelligently designed objects from natural ones? Mmmm? Seems like this Postrado cat has got himself a theory by which to work. Shame yours didn't turn out so well.

I'm going to introduce Edgar to Kathy.

Edited by Woodbine on July 19 2014,19:40

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2014,14:34   

Gary has been so loud and insistent that his view must be accepted until or unless a 'better one' was presented, surely he must be grateful we have finally met his challenge.
The ball's in your court Gary -- either this Edgar fellow has the right stuff or he doesn't.  But his stuff is newer and broader reaching than yours, so you have to counter it.
Otherwise, of course, on your own grounds you'll have to accept it.  Right?

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2014,14:57   

Damn, Gary....wait till Kathy sees this. It's got, like, equations and everything!



Does your theory have any mathematics, Gary? Because that's the best way to tell who's theory is best.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2014,14:59   

Wow.  If  you read the review N.Wells linked to in the other discussion of this work, it reads as if it were written about Gary's stuff.

Perhaps Edgar is one of the voices in Gary's head?
Or is Gary one of the voices in Edgar's?

Whichever it is, I think we can all be grateful  that those voices are not speaking to us.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2014,15:09   

As we can tell from Woodbine's excerpt, Edgar has an explicit definition of intelligence (score one for him over Gary), which doesn't have much in common with Gary's ideas.  He also applies math to the question of the Trinity (see the review by Randall Young), beyond simply finding that some items add up to three, especially when you stop counting at three.  That's 2:0 for Edgar so far.  Perhaps we are seeing the beginnings of a Brazil-scale loss of Gary's version of ID to the new and improved version?  No comments, Gary?

Quote
I'm going to introduce Edgar to Kathy.
And it's Woodbine for the win!

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2014,15:21   

Gary's trying to scrape together the money to buy the books so he can refute them.
(Yes, I know they're free -- but that's too expensive for Gary these days...)

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2014,01:05   

Quote (Woodbine @ July 19 2014,12:57)
Damn, Gary....wait till Kathy sees this. It's got, like, equations and everything!



Does your theory have any mathematics, Gary? Because that's the best way to tell who's theory is best.

It's not easy to tell, the writing being as lucid as Gary's, but it does look like his "third discovery" involves probabilities between 1.5 and 3.  We should introduce him to JoeG, Mathematical Super-Genius.

--------------
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 20 2014,01:42   

What someone else came up with for a definition is irrelevant to a theory of operation for a system being modeled. How that exact system works must be explained, not some other.

I write for people who need to know about David Heiserman's machine intelligence work, and what it's useful for. A systems biologist or other serious researcher would also be looking for a simple as possible circuit with sensory into a memory system that learns over time. How I from the model define intelligence does not even matter to someone who just want to know how to most easily model the phenomenon.

Where there is a model that already speaks for itself the accompanying theory is just additional information to go along with it. To be credible I had to reasonable degree demonstrate a computer model that (where all requirements are met) self-learns, which works for modeling behavior of matter, genetic behavior, cellular behavior, on up to human behavior.

Comparisons to other definitions shows you are not following standard practice for writing theory to explain how a system works. My being able to simply follow standard practice is from having all the rest right, for those who need to know how to model different kinds of behavior including intelligent.

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

   
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2014,03:42   

The fuck do you know about "writing theory", Gary?

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2014,04:31   

Quote (Woodbine @ July 19 2014,13:39)
Hey Gary, check out this bit from the blurb of Atheism and Intelligent Design....



Can your theory distinguish intelligently designed objects from natural ones? Mmmm?


Even where I added design detection to a model or a design detector is invented none of that explains what Judge Jones got upset by not getting from the defendants, a mechanism that can somehow be modeled, with a good chance of ultimately demonstrating said "intelligent cause" of some sort.

I don't waste time on what is not needed, or matters. Only thing I care about is what Judge Jones made clear enough that was needed, not that providing a mechanism for intelligent cause would have excused statements read in science classrooms to unfairly discredit another theory.

Quote (Woodbine @ July 19 2014,13:39)

I'm going to introduce Edgar to Kathy.


Kathy was an elected official the "scientific community" vowed to disgrace off the Kansas board of education and out of science teaching, who surprised everyone by it turning out it was best for all it turned out she splendidly won reelection and proved that regardless of religious side and openness to new ideas she was a positive influence on the science classrooms in her state. That was a lot of work I'm proud of even though it may seem something to be ashamed of. That is part of why the Kansas Citizens For Science forum is now just as an archive of when it was darn near a civil war in the state over ID. Instead of out of state politics making the conflict even worse she won on her own account then "creationists" were proud and happy to have not have been made powerless and shamed. You should not be suggesting Kathy is a legend for writing thoughts on ID.

Edgar's ideas might work for an Atheist looking for a religious view to feel intellectually fulfilled by, or someone looking for a strawman argument to use against the model and theory I use and defend. But where reviewers expect useful code for a model in the mechanism to ultimately demonstrate intelligent cause they would likely just delete it then wonder how they could have accidentally sent something like that to a place like Planet Source Code, which is for a ready to experiment with working model.

--------------
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 20 2014,04:42   

Quote (didymos @ July 20 2014,03:42)
The fuck do you know about "writing theory", Gary?

Obviously way more than you. You make theory such a ritual it's no wonder you never even wrote a "theory of operation" before or didn't already read hundreds of them and know the routine by now: explain how the device or system works.

Priding yourself on not even being able to write theory where it's standard practice to provide one is a sign of being scientifically dysfunctional.

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

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

Pages: (622) < ... 375 376 377 378 379 [380] 381 382 383 384 385 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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