RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 414 415 416 417 418 [419] 420 421 422 423 424 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2014,20:58   

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 17 2014,20:34)
That's not an explanation.  It's ungrammatical and incoherent word salad with no grounding in operational definitions, standard meanings, and reality.

Explain to me the "standard" scientific (not religious) meaning of the phrase "intelligent cause".

--------------
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: Dec. 17 2014,21:14   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2014,20:58)
Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 17 2014,20:34)
That's not an explanation.  It's ungrammatical and incoherent word salad with no grounding in operational definitions, standard meanings, and reality.

Explain to me the "standard" scientific (not religious) meaning of the phrase "intelligent cause".

After you - it's your pile of rubbish.

Why should I do your work for you?

And to repeat, since you are clearly just trying to evade my questions:

What are the units of molecular intelligence and how do you measure it?  Which has more "multicellular intelligence", a mushroom or a dandelion with the same number of cells, and precisely how much more?

What is the process by which "molecular intelligence" gives rise to "cellular intelligence"?  Since multicellular life appears to have preceded the Cambrian explosion by 1 to 1.5 billion years, does that mean that "multicellular intelligence" is unrelated to multicellular life?

And all the other questions we've asked you since the beginning of the thread, that you have avoided answering.  Not least of all is the question of how come we should pay any attention to your ideas when by your own criteria they've been made obsolete by Edgar Postrado's publications?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2014,22:16   

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 17 2014,21:14)
And to repeat, since you are clearly just trying to evade my questions:

What are the units of molecular intelligence and how do you measure it?  Which has more "multicellular intelligence", a mushroom or a dandelion with the same number of cells, and precisely how much more?

What is the process by which "molecular intelligence" gives rise to "cellular intelligence"?  Since multicellular life appears to have preceded the Cambrian explosion by 1 to 1.5 billion years, does that mean that "multicellular intelligence" is unrelated to multicellular life?

And all the other questions we've asked you since the beginning of the thread, that you have avoided answering.  Not least of all is the question of how come we should pay any attention to your ideas when by your own criteria they've been made obsolete by Edgar Postrado's publications?

Now you are talking about what the Intelligence Design Lab is for. That's where you find the all familiar line chart and variables it would have even where a human brain were being simulated. The exact same thing applies to all levels of intelligence predicted by theory to exist. This is not something I have to gather evidence for, the model evidences itself with over two decades of new discoveries explaining how that works at multiple levels in biology.

--------------
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: Dec. 17 2014,23:08   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2014,22:16)

Now you are talking about what the Intelligence Design Lab is for. That's where you find the all familiar line chart and variables it would have even where a human brain were being simulated. The exact same thing applies to all levels of intelligence predicted by theory to exist. This is not something I have to gather evidence for, the model evidences itself with over two decades of new discoveries explaining how that works at multiple levels in biology.

No, you haven't ground-truthed any of that.  You need operational definitions and demonstration of the actual existence of the things that you claim.  Until then, it is all AngelLift and PlaneElevation.

Added to which your program addresses only foraging by individuals, nothing molecular, nothing cellular, nothing evolutionary, no dandelions, no mushrooms, no Cambrian explosion, no genetics, no reproduction, and no Edgar Postrado.  So to repeat, What are the units of molecular intelligence and how do you measure it?  Which has more "multicellular intelligence", a mushroom or a dandelion with the same number of cells, and precisely how much more?

What is the process by which "molecular intelligence" gives rise to "cellular intelligence"?  Since multicellular life appears to have preceded the Cambrian explosion by 1 to 1.5 billion years, does that mean that "multicellular intelligence" is unrelated to multicellular life?

And all the other questions we've asked you since the beginning of the thread, that you have avoided answering.  Not least of all is the question of how come we should pay any attention to your ideas when by your own criteria they've been made obsolete by Edgar Postrado's publications?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2014,23:40   

I'm not going to waste my time answering to the same pompous rubbish all over again.

--------------
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: Dec. 17 2014,23:47   

But it's worth mentioning that Planet Source Code is back online again and all's well the code!

--------------
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: Dec. 17 2014,23:58   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2014,23:40)
I'm not going to waste my time answering to the same pompous rubbish all over again.

You haven't yet answered any of those (legitimate, non-pompous) questions even once, so the clear conclusion is that you can't answer any of them, all your bluster notwithstanding.


Quality of Planet Source Code Approval: "Will dive into it, when i'll get time".

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,07:10   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2014,21:40)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 17 2014,20:25)
   
Quote
It is your responsibility to explain how "intelligence" and "intelligent cause" works using a computer model representative of what is in my case decades old cognitive science, you never bothered to study so your opinion of it is easily shown to be from ignorance.

For you to equal what I presented in many forums you will need to have at least won an award in a programming community for scientists of all ages, like this model did.

You only shame yourself even more by excusing your bullying by throwing even more insults at me.

That's rubbish from beginning to end.  In reverse order: You feel insulted because you can't face your own errors.  I'm correcting, not bullying.  Your award is not very meaningful, as it was given by a small number of people who did not assess your scientific claims at all and barely looked at your program ('will look at it when I have time').  I've looked at your rubbish in more than enough detail to understand its failures.  It is not my responsibility to create a computer model nor to explain intelligence and intelligent cause (but if I was going to do that, creating a computer model would be a very poor route of attack on the problem for a variety of reasons).  FWIW, I have published a few computer programs, albeit a long time ago, but I understand well enough their strengths and weakness and what you can and can't do with them.

If you have no testable "model" to explain how something works than it's not a scientific theory.

We've been telling you something like this for literally years.  But as always you've got it wrong, deeply and profoundly wrong.
A model is not an explanation or a theory.
You need an explanation or a theory before you can build a valid model.
You have no "model".  The steaming heap of verbiage you have models nothing and is in no way, shape, or form testable.
 
Quote
All theories reduce to a model to test the theory with. Darwinian theory does that using "Evolutionary Algorithms".

Laughably false.  Absurd, even.
You have to stop pulling these nuggets out of your ass and smearing them across the web.

 
Quote
And these days if you can't make your model work in computer code then its theory will go nowhere anyway.

Even if we were to grant this absurd assertion, it would do you no good.  Your codes does not model the dadaist verbiage you continue to mislabel "theory".

Your software has nothing at all to do with your "theory" and your "theory" has nothing at all to do with your software.
Neither has anything to do with science.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,07:11   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2014,23:16)
Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 17 2014,21:14)
And to repeat, since you are clearly just trying to evade my questions:

What are the units of molecular intelligence and how do you measure it?  Which has more "multicellular intelligence", a mushroom or a dandelion with the same number of cells, and precisely how much more?

What is the process by which "molecular intelligence" gives rise to "cellular intelligence"?  Since multicellular life appears to have preceded the Cambrian explosion by 1 to 1.5 billion years, does that mean that "multicellular intelligence" is unrelated to multicellular life?

And all the other questions we've asked you since the beginning of the thread, that you have avoided answering.  Not least of all is the question of how come we should pay any attention to your ideas when by your own criteria they've been made obsolete by Edgar Postrado's publications?

Now you are talking about what the Intelligence Design Lab is for. That's where you find the all familiar line chart and variables it would have even where a human brain were being simulated. The exact same thing applies to all levels of intelligence predicted by theory to exist. This is not something I have to gather evidence for, the model evidences itself with over two decades of new discoveries explaining how that works at multiple levels in biology.

Bullshit.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,10:29   

Hello, NoName,
Quote
You need an explanation or a theory before you can build a valid model.
Well, you could explore a speculative hypothesis by coding a model, and the model could be valid if the hypothesis turned out to be correct.

However, the effort is not going anywhere if your terms are ill-defined and you are unable to quantify your parameters in any meaningful way.  Your statement about Gary confusing the map for the territory is spot-on.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,10:41   

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 18 2014,11:29)
Hello, NoName,
 
Quote
You need an explanation or a theory before you can build a valid model.
Well, you could explore a speculative hypothesis by coding a model, and the model could be valid if the hypothesis turned out to be correct.

However, the effort is not going anywhere if your terms are ill-defined and you are unable to quantify your parameters in any meaningful way.  Your statement about Gary confusing the map for the territory is spot-on.

I agree -- but what grants the model whatever explanatory force it has is the correctness of the hypothesis/theory which it illustrates.
Gary would appear to want any illustration to be treated as accurate and reflective of the actual-factual state of reality.
His model is, as you continue to rightly point out, not truth based, not factually grounded.  It has no evidence, it has almost no meaning, and thus it has zero explanatory force.
Gary in this, as in all things, gets it all backwards.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,11:06   

Actually, let me expand on my answer a bit -- a model can help understand something entirely fictional and lacking all relevance to the actual-factual world that is the subject of science.
For example, one could model Bilbo and Frodo's travels through Middle Earth.  One could model the Hobbit genealogy or the geological forces "responsible" for Mount Doom.
None of these have any significance to science, nor any explanatory power with respect to the fictional works from which their elements are drawn.  Insofar as the latter has any explanatory power, it really doesn't.  The underlying theories of geology and tectonics do, and one could borrow those for illustrative purposes.
And ultimately, that's all any model can offer -- an illustration which may assist in comprehending the underlying reality and/or the theories and hypotheses built up from the underlying reality.
Models in and of themselves have no explanatory power whatsoever, to the contrary of one of Gary's favorite, and most persistent, delusions.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,11:54   

Quote (NoName @ Dec. 18 2014,11:06)
Actually, let me expand on my answer a bit -- a model can help understand something entirely fictional and lacking all relevance to the actual-factual world that is the subject of science.
For example, one could model Bilbo and Frodo's travels through Middle Earth.  One could model the Hobbit genealogy or the geological forces "responsible" for Mount Doom.
None of these have any significance to science, nor any explanatory power with respect to the fictional works from which their elements are drawn.  Insofar as the latter has any explanatory power, it really doesn't.  The underlying theories of geology and tectonics do, and one could borrow those for illustrative purposes.
And ultimately, that's all any model can offer -- an illustration which may assist in comprehending the underlying reality and/or the theories and hypotheses built up from the underlying reality.
Models in and of themselves have no explanatory power whatsoever, to the contrary of one of Gary's favorite, and most persistent, delusions.

We are more in agreement than not.  

However, for example, global climate is so complex a situation that you necessarily explore hypotheses by running simulations (both controls to "predict" the present and reasonably well known situations like the last glacial maximum, and then other scenarios).  "Humans release CO2, which is going to trap heat" doesn't need a computer model, but predicting where that extra heat is going to go is not so straightforward.  The process of building and testing such a model does increase our explanatory abilities.  I agree that models are not per se explanations but are demonstrations of explanations and degree of understanding.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,12:31   

Perhaps relevant.

http://tinysubversions.com/content....Forever

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,16:25   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 18 2014,12:31)
Perhaps relevant.

http://tinysubversions.com/content....Forever

I normally ignore the NoName bot. What gives them away (as at least trolling as such) are ridiculous statements like "Models in and of themselves have no explanatory power whatsoever".

It's exciting to see the N.Wells (bot?) beginning to notice that NoName is really only generating smart sounding NonSense.

--------------
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: Dec. 18 2014,16:52   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 18 2014,17:25)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 18 2014,12:31)
Perhaps relevant.

http://tinysubversions.com/content....Forever

I normally ignore the NoName bot. What gives them away (as at least trolling as such) are ridiculous statements like "Models in and of themselves have no explanatory power whatsoever".

It's exciting to see the N.Wells (bot?) beginning to notice that NoName is really only generating smart sounding NonSense.

Oh, you poor pathetic moron.
That's two strikes -- I'm neither a bot nor resident or located in Canada.

Do take note that N. Wells is agreeing with me -- models may be useful for aiding in developing clearer insights that might lead to a useful hypothesis or theory, models may aid in the understanding of an explanation but  a model is not an explanation.
In fact, you need an explanation to build a valid model.
You have no explanation, not least because you have no specific phenomena in view.  You have no evidence, for the same reason.  Likewise, you have no model of anything real.  N. Wells's counter-example of angelic lift being responsible for flight is more coherent and specific than your effluent.
You clearly don't understand this at all.  There is no "model" that could help, fundamentally because you are delusional.  You have become an output-only device, only less useful.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,17:05   

Btw, it is only just barely amusing to see you ignoring the devastating blow to your wibble that N. Wells has landed (repeatedly).
It is obvious to all that you ignore my posts because they have been devastating to your claims and assertions.  Much as you ignore N. Wells' criticisms.  And those of countless others over the years and the many sites you have befouled with your twaddle.

For all your braggadocio you are a coward and a wimp.  Perhaps those are the root cause for your life of epic failure?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,17:13   

There are now so many!

https://www.google.com/webhp?s....ult+Bot

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

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,17:14   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 18 2014,16:25)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 18 2014,12:31)
Perhaps relevant.

http://tinysubversions.com/content....Forever

I normally ignore the NoName bot. What gives them away (as at least trolling as such) are ridiculous statements like "Models in and of themselves have no explanatory power whatsoever".

It's exciting to see the N.Wells (bot?) beginning to notice that NoName is really only generating smart sounding NonSense.

A) So the board is full of bots?  I'm jealous, I've never been accused of being a bot.  I just get to be someone who used a time machine to show up here 5 1/2 years before Gary so I could bully him by pretending to be a teacher.

B) Gary only wishes he was capable of "generating smart sounding NonSense".  All he can manage on a good day is dumb sounding nonsense. (Usually he only manages gibbering nonsense.)

--------------
"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: Dec. 18 2014,17:16   

Quote

Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

http://www.technologyreview.com/view....onsense


--------------
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: Dec. 18 2014,17:37   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 18 2014,18:16)
 
Quote

Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

http://www.technologyreview.com/view.......onsense

Poor pathetic Gary, doubling down on his stupid mistakes.
How can one entity (for surely it is not a man, and hardly even a person) be so wrong so persistently about so many things?
Has Gary ever been correct about anything?

It's almost a pity that he didn't focus on chatbots instead of his incompetent little inept Roomba software emulation.
His verbiage is beyond paody, beneath contempt, and borderline aphasic.  Is a-literate a thing?  If it is, Gary must be the poster child.

And Gary, since I have your attention, how can a phenomenon be emergent from a phenomenon to which it is 'self-similar'?  Where and how are muscle systems involved in the composition of a melody?  How could a deaf composer create a masterpiece within the constraints of your "theory"?
Can you explain?  Of course not -- you don't even know what an explanation is.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,18:49   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 18 2014,16:25)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 18 2014,12:31)
Perhaps relevant.

http://tinysubversions.com/content....Forever

I normally ignore the NoName bot. What gives them away (as at least trolling as such) are ridiculous statements like "Models in and of themselves have no explanatory power whatsoever".

It's exciting to see the N.Wells (bot?) beginning to notice that NoName is really only generating smart sounding NonSense.

No, you've got that wrong: I'm having a conversation with NoName about a subtle quibble in a single minor detail.  This pales in comparison to the degree that you have convinced us that you are completely and ludicrously wrong.  NoName is not generating nonsense: you, on the other hand, are generating nonsense that isn't sounding even the slightest bit smart.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2014,08:15   

Hey Gary, maybe this will help:
Is a ball on a string being swung around someone's head a decent 'first order approximation' of a model of the Moon orbiting the Earth?
Does it provide any explanatory power regarding why or how the moon orbits the Earth?

Is a 1/48 scale model of an SR-71 a decent model of an SR-71 Blackbird?  
Does it have any explanatory power regarding how or why the SR-71 holds air speed records?
Does it have an explanatory power regarding how or why the SR-71 leaks fuel like a sieve on the runway and thus must be refueled after launch, preferably at high speed?

Models fill many useful functions.  Explanation is not one of them.  They are at best illustrative.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2014,09:21   

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 18 2014,18:49)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 18 2014,16:25)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 18 2014,12:31)
Perhaps relevant.

http://tinysubversions.com/content....Forever

I normally ignore the NoName bot. What gives them away (as at least trolling as such) are ridiculous statements like "Models in and of themselves have no explanatory power whatsoever".

It's exciting to see the N.Wells (bot?) beginning to notice that NoName is really only generating smart sounding NonSense.

No, you've got that wrong: I'm having a conversation with NoName about a subtle quibble in a single minor detail.  This pales in comparison to the degree that you have convinced us that you are completely and ludicrously wrong.  NoName is not generating nonsense: you, on the other hand, are generating nonsense that isn't sounding even the slightest bit smart.

Minor detail? How about this most recent nonsense where the first half of their sentence is so ridiculous that only a nutcase would believe anything else they said after that?

Quote
How can one entity (for surely it is not a man, and hardly even a person) be so wrong so persistently about so many things?


--------------
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: Dec. 19 2014,09:34   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2014,10:21)
Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 18 2014,18:49)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 18 2014,16:25)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 18 2014,12:31)
Perhaps relevant.

http://tinysubversions.com/content....Forever

I normally ignore the NoName bot. What gives them away (as at least trolling as such) are ridiculous statements like "Models in and of themselves have no explanatory power whatsoever".

It's exciting to see the N.Wells (bot?) beginning to notice that NoName is really only generating smart sounding NonSense.

No, you've got that wrong: I'm having a conversation with NoName about a subtle quibble in a single minor detail.  This pales in comparison to the degree that you have convinced us that you are completely and ludicrously wrong.  NoName is not generating nonsense: you, on the other hand, are generating nonsense that isn't sounding even the slightest bit smart.

Minor detail? How about this most recent nonsense where the first half of their sentence is so ridiculous that only a nutcase would believe anything else they said after that?

Quote
How can one entity (for surely it is not a man, and hardly even a person) be so wrong so persistently about so many things?

Hey Gary -- it's not nonsense, it is merely an insult.

The question remains -- how do you be so persistently and consistently wrong about so much?
We have yet to see if there is anything at all about which you can utter a truth.
So far it's not looking good.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2014,09:41   

BTW, nice try at an ad hominem argument.
You accuse me of being a nutcase and therefore nothing else I say should be heard or believed.
Do take note that we generally do not insist that your arguments are wrong because you are a nutcase.  Rather the opposite -- you are a flaming loony because your arguments are wrong, insofar as they even rise to the level of 'argument'.  This is how evidence works, Gary.
Even if you had evidence that I was crazy (I'm not, my mother had me tested ;-) ), that would not be grounds for rejecting my arguments.  The arguments stand or fall on the merits.
What a pity that your wibble has no merit and thus falls.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2014,09:55   

Quote (NoName @ Dec. 19 2014,09:34)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2014,10:21)
Quote
How can one entity (for surely it is not a man, and hardly even a person) be so wrong so persistently about so many things?

Hey Gary -- it's not nonsense, it is merely an insult.


Not fully:

BUSH : Machinehead
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....nYj7plQ

--------------
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: Dec. 19 2014,10:25   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2014,10:55)
Quote (NoName @ Dec. 19 2014,09:34)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2014,10:21)
Quote
How can one entity (for surely it is not a man, and hardly even a person) be so wrong so persistently about so many things?

Hey Gary -- it's not nonsense, it is merely an insult.


Not fully:

BUSH : Machinehead
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....nYj7plQ

Yes, fully.
Regardless of your execrable musical taste or absurd and irrelevant links.

But nice job of dealing with the criticisms and responses to the substantive portions, such as they are, of your wibble.
Same as it ever was, anything, anything at all, to avoid dealing with criticism of any sort.  Including claiming others are trolls, bots, or otherwise 'unworthy of your attention'.

How can any one being produce the consistent and persistent level of errors you do?  And yes, they are errors.

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2014,10:45   

Once it hooted:  
Quote
Minor detail? How about this most recent nonsense where the first half of their sentence is so ridiculous that only a nutcase would believe anything else they said after that?

"How can one entity (for surely it is not a man, and hardly even a person) be so wrong so persistently about so many things?"


Nonsense?  We've pointed out, time and again, in multiple ways, and on multiple levels, just where your errors are.  Ignoring them doesn't make them any less important, nor go away, and shows that you're just unwilling to accept the fact that you're wrong or do anything to change those very errors.  

To quote a Led Zeppelin song, that's NOBODY'S FAULT BUT YOURS.

Still, I do enjoy pointing and laughing at you.

Whatta hoot!  :)  :)  :)

p.s.  I could write a program making me a bot, but then I'd miss your ridiculous tirades and public fit-throwing.  I'm into low-brow comedy like that.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2014,10:54   

This is the model that is supposed to be under discussion:


https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf

From Arnold Trehub, "The Cognitive Brain", MIT Press 1991, Chapter 9, Page 158, Fig 9.3


http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....ub....b
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....er9.pdf

Also see machine learning, David L. Heiserman "How to Build Your Own Self-Programming Robot" TAB Books 1979
http://www.beam-wiki.org/wiki.......#Rodney

--------------
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) < ... 414 415 416 417 418 [419] 420 421 422 423 424 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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