RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 389 390 391 392 393 [394] 395 396 397 398 399 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2014,09:15   

Battle of mimes? Gary?
Marcel Marceau

Vs
Noh theater


--------------
"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: Aug. 29 2014,11:04   

You have a golden opportunity here, Gary.  I don't know enough about laryngeal anatomy and sound production, and it's possible that there's some odd relationship where a lag in signal arrival time could have some bizarre but significant effect on infrasound production.  I've no idea what that could be, but you have a great opportunity to make me look like an idiot and make yourself the expert with credibility.  But here's the thing: you can't just say, "might be", or make an empty assertion: you have to back up your suggestions and assertions with solid facts.

Anyhow, the more I read, the more it seems like you have less than no idea of what you are talking about.  Sound production is primarily the job of the larynx, except in birds, and it happens in the larynx, sometimes beside the larynx, and above the larynx, but not below it.  Since the length of the neck is below the larynx, the length of the neck and the length of the recurrent laryngeal nerve ARE NOT in any direct way related to the vocalization, except that sound is produced by the air that has come up through the neck from the lungs.  The trachea is not a "resonance chamber".  The length of the neck and the recurrent laryngeal nerve are not inherently proportional to any resonating chambers, contra your assertions.

From Wikipedia: Sound is generated in the larynx, which manipulates pitch and volume.  "Fine manipulation of the larynx is used to generate a source sound with a particular fundamental frequency, or pitch." The sound is modified as  travels past the tongue, lips, mouth, and pharynx.  Pitch can be modified by rocking the thyroid cartilage forward and backward on the cricoid cartilage, by manipulating the tension of the muscles within the vocal folds, and by moving the arytenoids forward or backward. The vocal apparatus consists of the false vocal folds (which are used for vocalization only in Tuvan throat singing and the like) and the true vocal folds (folds).  Some animals have resonating chambers consisting of pouches or ventricles or sacs or other diverticula off to the side of the larynx, which can be used to make additional sounds.  

 
Quote
[from ]http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapo....po....] So far in this series of articles, we’ve looked at primates, baleen whales and reindeer. But these are far from the only mammals with laryngeal diverticula located on the midline of the throat: small sac-like structures located on the ventral surface are also present in opossums (Didelphis), quolls (Dasyurus), some phalangers (Trichosurus and Phalanger), swamp wallabies (Wallabia), hedgehogs (Erinaceus), squirrels (Sciurus), marmots (Marmota), water voles (Arvicola), tapirs (Tapirus), horses (Equus), boar (Sus), eland (Tragelaphus), saiga (Saiga), takin (Budorcas), some bears (Ursus), wolves (Canis lupus), southern sea lions (Otaria) and various others (see Frey et al. (2007) for a complete list........ In some taxa, these structures are associated with enlarged hyoid bullae ....., but in others they are not.


The larynx sits between the epiglottis and the cricoid cartiliage, and it hangs from the hyoid bone.  It includes the epiglottic, thyroid, cricoid, arytenoid, corniculate, and cuneiform cartilages.  In big cats, koalas, deer, some bats, and humans, the larynx is set unusually low within the throat compared to the normal mammalian condition.  In newborn humans, the larynx is initially at the level of the C2–C3 vertebrae, but as the child grows it descends to its adult position near the top of the neck at the level of the C3–C6 vertebrae.  

If you go to the image of the dissected head of the Mongolian gazelle at http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapo....tal-sac ,  you can see the larynx at the top of the trachea, in a Mongolian gazelle: it's the stuff between the back of the tongue and the top of the trachea is the larynx.  It is similarly at the top of the trachea in giraffes, albeit a tiny bit deeper in the throat than in some animals (about half a skull-length's down, but still proportionally well above where it sits in people).  You can just make it out in http://www.animalinsideout.com/downloa....916.jpg and http://cbsdallas.files.wordpress.com/2013.......y-2.jpg .  The full length of the throat and the detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerve past the base of the throat do not seem relevant.  

We guessed that earlier from thinking about sound production in elephants and alligators, but you didn't even get that far in your thinking.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2014,15:37   

Update to Steinecke-Herzel laryngeal sound production model.

You can actually produce output waveforms with the Steinecke-Herzel model.

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

    
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2014,16:47   

Gary, note how the paper cited by Wesley:
a) provides a definition,
b) introduces and explains a model using comprehensible language,
c) lists assumptions
d) defines specialized terminology (by reference to earlier publications), and
e) provides operational definitions.

All of this happens before we get out of the introduction.

Next, they show a flaw in the standard model, which they discovered through the process of testing model output in unusual situations (unilateral paralysis) against what really happens. They deduced what appeared to have gone wrong, and they fixed it.

In other papers they compared their output to output of competing models (http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/133/3/10.1121/1.4790662) and they tested model output against clinical data in order to ground-truth their results (http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/poma/19/1/10.1121/1.4800662).  They have also done other complicated experimental work to ensure that they properly understand what's going on (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142727X12000422) .  Compared to them, you've done exactly none of this: as NoName said, what you are doing is very different from real science.

Also, they don't seem to find it necessary to talk about lengthening or shortening the recurrent laryngeal nerve's length in order to incur signal-reception delays.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2014,07:59   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 29 2014,15:37)
Update to Steinecke-Herzel laryngeal sound production model.

You can actually produce output waveforms with the Steinecke-Herzel model.

That's one part of the system, but it's not the frequency control (including frequency limiting) circuit that properly resonates systems from very tiny to this gigantic:


http://www.bbc.com/news.......7441156

I need to see all of the rest of the system, to control air flow and pressures from lungs to lips. There are signals to and from each muscle, and sensory signals that can detect pressure, vibration, air velocity, etc..

--------------
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: Aug. 30 2014,08:19   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 29 2014,16:47)
Gary, note how the paper cited by Wesley:
a) provides a definition,
b) introduces and explains a model using comprehensible language,
c) lists assumptions
d) defines specialized terminology (by reference to earlier publications), and
e) provides operational definitions.

All of this happens before we get out of the introduction.

Next, they show a flaw in the standard model, which they discovered through the process of testing model output in unusual situations (unilateral paralysis) against what really happens. They deduced what appeared to have gone wrong, and they fixed it.

In other papers they compared their output to output of competing models (http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/133/3/10.1121/1.4790662) and they tested model output against clinical data in order to ground-truth their results (http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/poma/19/1/10.1121/1.4800662).  They have also done other complicated experimental work to ensure that they properly understand what's going on (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142727X12000422) .  Compared to them, you've done exactly none of this: as NoName said, what you are doing is very different from real science.

Also, they don't seem to find it necessary to talk about lengthening or shortening the recurrent laryngeal nerve's length in order to incur signal-reception delays.

Then you are saying that a person has to write a paper that would cost millions of dollars in research, or else an argument from ignorance (based upon lack of such information) is unarguably scientifically true.

--------------
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: Aug. 30 2014,09:07   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 30 2014,08:59)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 29 2014,15:37)
Update to Steinecke-Herzel laryngeal sound production model.

You can actually produce output waveforms with the Steinecke-Herzel model.

That's one part of the system, but it's not the frequency control (including frequency limiting) circuit that properly resonates systems from very tiny to this gigantic:


http://www.bbc.com/news.......7441156

I need to see all of the rest of the system, to control air flow and pressures from lungs to lips. There are signals to and from each muscle, and sensory signals that can detect pressure, vibration, air velocity, etc..

And yet again you appear to be confusing the control path with the signal path.
Yes, the control paths are important.  But they are, fundamentally, irrelevant to the signal path's capabilities.
You cannot change the resonant  frequency of a sealed speaker enclosure by varying the cutoff point of the crossover.
You can tune it, within fairly tight limits, in a ported enclosure, but again, this is part of the signal system, not part of the control system.

And you are sliding further and further from your original absurd claim that resonances in the laryngeal nerve produce or were 'responsible for' the resonances in the vocal apparatus.  Electronic resonance is not equal to acoustic resonance.  The phenomena are strictly decoupled, and can only be consider comparable under a generalization.  It's a valid generalization in many uses, but aren't you the guy who insists that generalizations invalidate 'real science' work?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2014,09:11   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 30 2014,09:19)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 29 2014,16:47)
Gary, note how the paper cited by Wesley:
a) provides a definition,
b) introduces and explains a model using comprehensible language,
c) lists assumptions
d) defines specialized terminology (by reference to earlier publications), and
e) provides operational definitions.

All of this happens before we get out of the introduction.

Next, they show a flaw in the standard model, which they discovered through the process of testing model output in unusual situations (unilateral paralysis) against what really happens. They deduced what appeared to have gone wrong, and they fixed it.

In other papers they compared their output to output of competing models (http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/133/3/10.1121/1.4790662) and they tested model output against clinical data in order to ground-truth their results (http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/poma/19/1/10.1121/1.4800662).  They have also done other complicated experimental work to ensure that they properly understand what's going on (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142727X12000422) .  Compared to them, you've done exactly none of this: as NoName said, what you are doing is very different from real science.

Also, they don't seem to find it necessary to talk about lengthening or shortening the recurrent laryngeal nerve's length in order to incur signal-reception delays.

Then you are saying that a person has to write a paper that would cost millions of dollars in research, or else an argument from ignorance (based upon lack of such information) is unarguably scientifically true.

Does not follow.
In fact, a massive non sequitur, as per your usual.

Does your work lack, in fact, elements a through e?  Yes.
Does your work lack them specifically in the introduction, where they properly belong?  Despite all your turd polishing, yes.
Do you understand or properly explain the standard model you are seeking to overthrow?  No and no.
Do you reference, properly, published reference work and show how it impacts and/or is impacted by your "theory"?  No and no.

Are you the world's biggest scientific poseur?  Mmmm, could be...
Particularly given that you are the one who insists that your argument from ignorance is unarguably scientifically true.  Despite your lack of evidence and despite the unanswered evidence presented against you.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2014,10:16   

Quote
Then you are saying that a person has to write a paper that would cost millions of dollars in research, or else an argument from ignorance (based upon lack of such information) is unarguably scientifically true.

I'm not saying that at all.  That you are willing to distort what I said to such an extent speaks ill of your character and your honesty.

In what way am I asking for expensive research?  The **amount** of work that you've done would be just fine, had you done a decent job of it rather than a complete and totally incompetent screw-up.  Beyond that, how much does it cost to use English properly, learn standard definitions, and think through your assumptions?

The history of science is full of great papers that are not based on millions of dollars worth of research but which are perfectly good science, and which somehow managed to include good operational definitions, good definitions of technical terms (or which managed to stay within standard usages), coherent and comprehensible descriptions of models, honest representation of previous work, and decent discussions of assumptions.  That you don't manage to do any of that simply means that you haven't accomplished great science, and in fact lie far outside the boundaries of worthwhile science.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2014,10:18   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 30 2014,08:19)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 29 2014,16:47)
Gary, note how the paper cited by Wesley:
a) provides a definition,
b) introduces and explains a model using comprehensible language,
c) lists assumptions
d) defines specialized terminology (by reference to earlier publications), and
e) provides operational definitions.

All of this happens before we get out of the introduction.

Next, they show a flaw in the standard model, which they discovered through the process of testing model output in unusual situations (unilateral paralysis) against what really happens. They deduced what appeared to have gone wrong, and they fixed it.

In other papers they compared their output to output of competing models (http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/133/3/10.1121/1.4790662) and they tested model output against clinical data in order to ground-truth their results (http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/poma/19/1/10.1121/1.4800662).  They have also done other complicated experimental work to ensure that they properly understand what's going on (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142727X12000422) .  Compared to them, you've done exactly none of this: as NoName said, what you are doing is very different from real science.

Also, they don't seem to find it necessary to talk about lengthening or shortening the recurrent laryngeal nerve's length in order to incur signal-reception delays.

Then you are saying that a person has to write a paper that would cost millions of dollars in research, or else an argument from ignorance (based upon lack of such information) is unarguably scientifically true.

Translation from the Gaulinese: "you expect me to do actual scientific research instead of making shit up from my basement?  How dare you?!?"

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2014,12:14   

For those wanting to track major changes to the theory I just changed

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 in biology (emergent from behavior of matter) a collective of intelligent entities at the molecular level (self-replicating genetic systems) combine to cause emergence of intelligence at the cellular level, which combine to cause the emergence of intelligence at the multicellular level, to create us who are thereby a trinity of self-similar intelligence levels at different size scales each systematically and behaviorally in their/our own image, likeness.

To:
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 in biology (behavior of matter self-assembles) a collective of intelligent entities at the molecular level (self-replicating genetic systems) combine to cause emergence of intelligence at the cellular level, which combine to cause the emergence of intelligence at the multicellular level, to create us who are thereby a trinity of self-similar intelligence levels at different size scales each systematically and behaviorally in their/our own image, likeness.


The change was only a couple of words but since it's the first most important paragraph it was worth mentioning. This way how the first "emergence" gets started (behavior of matter self-assembles) is ahead of time mentioned.

--------------
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: Aug. 30 2014,12:55   

The same old problems still hold.  The new phrase is ungrammatical and incoherent.

Not only are you still re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic, you aren't even re-arranging them nicely.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2014,13:16   

Isn't it cute how making the first paragraph slightly less coherent and sensible counts as 'major changes to the theory'?
Gary has a real talent for pretentiousness.  That it's usually about turd-polishing is hysterical.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2014,13:38   

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 in biology (behavior of matter self-assembles) a collective of intelligent entities at the molecular level (self-replicating genetic systems) combine to cause emergence of intelligence at the cellular level, which combine to cause the emergence of intelligence at the multicellular level, to create us who are thereby a trinity of self-similar intelligence levels at different size scales each systematically and behaviorally in their/our own image, likeness.

That is the worst sentence in the history of the Universe.

It is peak gibberish.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2014,14:05   

Is there a suitable Bulwer-Lytton contest we can enter that in?

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2014,14:45   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 30 2014,15:05)
Is there a suitable Bulwer-Lytton contest we can enter that in?

Does the Journal of Irreproducible Results still publish?

I could almost, almost, see nominating Gary for an IgNoble.  But it would go to his head.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2014,16:10   

Gary insists that it is now THE theory of intelligent design*, so perhaps we should take him at his word and pass it on to extremist legislators who are still trying to get ID into classrooms (e.g. recent proposals in Ohio).  If they actually incorporated it into a proposed law, everyone involved would look so stupid that the whole problem might finally wither away completely.  Go for it, Gary, send it to some of the extremist Republicans infesting Ohio's state government.

*Gary still hasn't justified ignoring all the more recent and more extensive work by Edgar Postrado, which by Gary's own standards makes Gary's stuff obsolete.  How about it, Gary? - why should anyone pay attention to your obsolete rubbish?

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2014,17:19   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 30 2014,17:10)
Gary insists that it is now THE theory of intelligent design*,

that was the best part of gary's exchanges on the other sites. Gary says something about "ID", some knowledgeable person like Gary Hurd says ID is junk, and then gary berates them for not having read THE THEORY!!!!!1111 which nobody of course is going to do because it's 50 pages of garbled gibberish.

Edited by stevestory on Aug. 30 2014,18:20

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2014,19:10   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 30 2014,17:19)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 30 2014,17:10)
Gary insists that it is now THE theory of intelligent design*,

that was the best part of gary's exchanges on the other sites. Gary says something about "ID", some knowledgeable person like Gary Hurd says ID is junk, and then gary berates them for not having read THE THEORY!!!!!1111 which nobody of course is going to do because it's 50 pages of garbled gibberish.

There are not very many movies a year that are so finely crafted that you don't know whether to laugh or cry, or both at the same time, and yet Gary achieves that effect almost every other post.

If it was performance art, it would be brilliant*.  Given that it's entirely unintended, not so much.

*Borat-level, perhaps:  it's the fourth best theory in Kazakhstan, and the first most important paragraph EVAH!

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2014,20:32   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 31 2014,03:10)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 30 2014,17:19)
     
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 30 2014,17:10)
Gary insists that it is now THE theory of intelligent design*,

that was the best part of gary's exchanges on the other sites. Gary says something about "ID", some knowledgeable person like Gary Hurd says ID is junk, and then gary berates them for not having read THE THEORY!!!!!1111 which nobody of course is going to do because it's 50 pages of garbled gibberish.

There are not very many movies a year that are so finely crafted that you don't know whether to laugh or cry, or both at the same time, and yet Gary achieves that effect almost every other post.

If it was performance art, it would be brilliant*.  Given that it's entirely unintended, not so much.

*Borat-level, perhaps:  it's the fourth best theory in Kazakhstan, and the first most important paragraph EVAH!

Oh come on, Gary up there with Borat?
As performance Art would anyone pay to go and see it?
Borat was an 'in' joke that included a few celebs acting themselves being taken in by 'Borat'.
I don't see that aspect between Gary (who apparently isn't acting) and celebrated scientists.
The only art associated with Gary's performance is the replies on the blogs he trolls.

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

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2014,20:40   

Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 30 2014,20:32)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 31 2014,03:10)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 30 2014,17:19)
     
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 30 2014,17:10)
Gary insists that it is now THE theory of intelligent design*,

that was the best part of gary's exchanges on the other sites. Gary says something about "ID", some knowledgeable person like Gary Hurd says ID is junk, and then gary berates them for not having read THE THEORY!!!!!1111 which nobody of course is going to do because it's 50 pages of garbled gibberish.

There are not very many movies a year that are so finely crafted that you don't know whether to laugh or cry, or both at the same time, and yet Gary achieves that effect almost every other post.

If it was performance art, it would be brilliant*.  Given that it's entirely unintended, not so much.

*Borat-level, perhaps:  it's the fourth best theory in Kazakhstan, and the first most important paragraph EVAH!

Oh come on, Gary up there with Borat?
As performance Art would anyone pay to go and see it?
Borat was an 'in' joke that included a few celebs acting themselves being taken in by 'Borat'.
I don't see that aspect between Gary (who apparently isn't acting) and celebrated scientists.
The only art associated with Gary's performance is the replies on the blogs he trolls.

Gary has claimed that celebrated scientist Casey Luskin supports him.  If only Casey would appear on screen...

--------------
"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: Aug. 30 2014,23:18   

Quote
As performance Art would anyone pay to go and see it?


http://badperformanceart.tumblr.com/....blr....blr.com

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped....all.jpg

http://sobadsogood.com/2014.......o-Moire

Quote
For those wanting to track major changes to the theory I just changed

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 in biology (emergent from behavior of matter) a collective of intelligent entities at the molecular level (self-replicating genetic systems) combine to cause emergence of intelligence at the cellular level, which combine to cause the emergence of intelligence at the multicellular level, to create us who are thereby a trinity of self-similar intelligence levels at different size scales each systematically and behaviorally in their/our own image, likeness.


To:
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 in biology (behavior of matter self-assembles) a collective of intelligent entities at the molecular level (self-replicating genetic systems) combine to cause emergence of intelligence at the cellular level, which combine to cause the emergence of intelligence at the multicellular level, to create us who are thereby a trinity of self-similar intelligence levels at different size scales each systematically and behaviorally in their/our own image, likeness.



The change was only a couple of words but since it's the first most important paragraph it was worth mentioning. This way how the first "emergence" gets started (behavior of matter self-assembles) is ahead of time mentioned.


Normal humans couldn't dream up those things if they tried.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2014,01:17   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 30 2014,14:10)
Gary insists that it is now THE theory of intelligent design*, so perhaps we should take him at his word and pass it on to extremist legislators who are still trying to get ID into classrooms (e.g. recent proposals in Ohio).  If they actually incorporated it into a proposed law, everyone involved would look so stupid that the whole problem might finally wither away completely.  Go for it, Gary, send it to some of the extremist Republicans infesting Ohio's state government.

*Gary still hasn't justified ignoring all the more recent and more extensive work by Edgar Postrado, which by Gary's own standards makes Gary's stuff obsolete.  How about it, Gary? - why should anyone pay attention to your obsolete rubbish?

I like it, NW.  Perhaps they'll finally drop their attempts to teach religion in science class, and push for the teaching of Garybabble in English class.

Grammar, syntax, coherence?  Teach the controversy!

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

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2014,07:06   

Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 31 2014,02:17)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 30 2014,14:10)
Gary insists that it is now THE theory of intelligent design*, so perhaps we should take him at his word and pass it on to extremist legislators who are still trying to get ID into classrooms (e.g. recent proposals in Ohio).  If they actually incorporated it into a proposed law, everyone involved would look so stupid that the whole problem might finally wither away completely.  Go for it, Gary, send it to some of the extremist Republicans infesting Ohio's state government.

*Gary still hasn't justified ignoring all the more recent and more extensive work by Edgar Postrado, which by Gary's own standards makes Gary's stuff obsolete.  How about it, Gary? - why should anyone pay attention to your obsolete rubbish?

I like it, NW.  Perhaps they'll finally drop their attempts to teach religion in science class, and push for the teaching of Garybabble in English class.

Grammar, syntax, coherence?  Teach the controversy!

Absolutely!
Why shouldn't Plan 9 from Outer Space and Attack of the Killer Tomatoes get all the attention that's wasted on Citizen Kane and Gone with the Wind?

Perhaps the epic (auto-)bio-pic could be 'The Cabinet of Dr. GagaGaulinari'?  Referring to himself as 'Dr' wouldn't be the biggest fraud he's committed.  Close, and likely more actionable, but what the heck.  It could be passed off as an homage to the original.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2014,14:00   

Quote (NoName @ Aug. 31 2014,05:06)
Perhaps the epic (auto-)bio-pic could be 'The Cabinet of Dr. GagaGaulinari'?  Referring to himself as 'Dr' wouldn't be the biggest fraud he's committed.  Close, and likely more actionable, but what the heck.  It could be passed off as an homage to the original.

Except Gary's oeuvre is not so much German Expressionism as Hollywood Slapstick.  Whether Gary should be played by Curly, Larry or Moe might be a good topic for classroom discussion.

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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2014,15:22   

Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 31 2014,14:00)
       
Quote (NoName @ Aug. 31 2014,05:06)
Perhaps the epic (auto-)bio-pic could be 'The Cabinet of Dr. GagaGaulinari'?  Referring to himself as 'Dr' wouldn't be the biggest fraud he's committed.  Close, and likely more actionable, but what the heck.  It could be passed off as an homage to the original.

Except Gary's oeuvre is not so much German Expressionism as Hollywood Slapstick.  Whether Gary should be played by Curly, Larry or Moe might be a good topic for classroom discussion.

All three: it would be a fitting trinity of incoherence.

Moe as Ego, Curly as Id (ID?), and Larry as Gary's Compiled Executable Program.

Or possibly Moelecular Intelligence and Curlylar Intelligence, leaving Larry to represent Gary-level intelligence, or lack thereof.  You can almost hear one of them spluttering "GaGaGIGO" followed by a hollow thud representing them running headfirst into Gary's not-a-theory.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2014,16:00   

This is what we ought to be hearing from Gary:
Gary at work

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2014,17:35   

Quote
Why shouldn't Plan 9 from Outer Space and Attack of the Killer Tomatoes get all the attention that's wasted on Citizen Kane and Gone with the Wind?

Not to mention Night of the Lepus! (Talk about your wascally wabbits! Where's Elmer Fudd when you need 'em... )

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2014,19:38   

I thought I should see what the artwork looks in this thread's gallery too:

The abstract thought to draw to the screen as artwork would be accomplished by saving the output state of all grid, place, border and other cells of its internal world model. Which means this is what I have so far for artwork, with appropriate title for what is being shown:

EXACT MOMENT OF INDECISION


HEDWAY TOWARDS THE (SOUND) WAVE SOURCE


It's very very simplistic art but have to start somewhere. I just happened to have a couple and had to add them to the this thread's art gallery.

--------------
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: Aug. 31 2014,19:55   

Oh and the HEADWAY typo was fixed, but not in this display oh well.

I ended up getting busy explaining the model and theory to some who are into AI generated artwork and I ended up needing to explain how that's created too.

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

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

Pages: (622) < ... 389 390 391 392 393 [394] 395 396 397 398 399 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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