RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 426 427 428 429 430 [431] 432 433 434 435 436 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2015,20:21   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 26 2015,20:15)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 26 2015,19:28)
Have your comrades in tard picked up keyboards to code with you, Gary?


Why is that, do you think?

Why does that even matter to the ID theory that I defend? As far as the theory is concerned the only stable home it knows is on Planet Source Code and it's a good thing none at UD are close to beating the model. What happens next at UD is up to those who are there, with whatever they ultimately do not much mattering to science.

Or did you actually expect the Discovery Institute to have become a giant supercomputing center by now? Not even someone as optimistic as I am could picture that happening.

LOL.

It is not a theory, You keep using the word wrong.

UD couldn't find there asses with both hands. Their inability to do things is legendary. You'll fit right in.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2015,20:34   

All the critics have are their sour grapes, for having had no theory at all to explain Intelligence and intelligent cause. Only proved how out of touch with cognitive science they are. Whine and complain about even about David Heiserman beginners level theory for how intelligence works. It's really sad, but that's the kind of denial I get from what could best be called "Darwinian extremists".

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2015,21:57   

Intelligent Design lab 3.tard



PSC thumbsupeded!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2015,22:03   

Well, keep us abreast of further developments on that front.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2015,07:11   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 26 2015,21:34)
All the critics have are their sour grapes, for having had no theory at all to explain Intelligence and intelligent cause. Only proved how out of touch with cognitive science they are. Whine and complain about even about David Heiserman beginners level theory for how intelligence works. It's really sad, but that's the kind of denial I get from what could best be called "Darwinian extremists".

Ah, all the Gaulinian tropes wrapped in one nearly coherent outburst.
Gary, you don't have a theory.
No theory wins just because it's the only one out there.
You constantly contradict standard definitions and conceptions of Cognitive Science.  In no way can your effluent be taken to be representative of any aspect of Cognitive Science, let alone its "cutting edge".
Heiserman's work bears no resemblance to yours.  Your attempt to bask in 'reflected glory' fail for countless reasons, most if not all of which have been presented repeatedly on this thread.
The only denial going on is yours.

Go ahead, step up to the challenge and address some of the many challenges to your swill.  It has been reduced to a dispersing cloud of quarks in the face of evidence and reason.  Two things you oh so conspicuously lack.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2015,07:13   

In case you've forgotten (repressed) them, or overlooked them in your zeal to find some kind of mote in the eyes of others while ignoring the lumberyard in your own, here you go -- step up and address these:

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 31 2014,09:31)
You've got a whole lot of transparent and ineffective distraction going on, Gary.
As NoName said earlier,
     
Quote
Stop deflecting, distracting, and denying.  Man up and deal with the facts on the ground:

A phenomenon is not properly called 'emergent' when it arises from a set of phenomena to which it is properly called 'self-similar'.  And vice versa.
Not all acts of 'intelligence' are motor acts, yet your "theory" insists otherwise.  This flies in the face of your assertion that your, or any competing, "theory" must "explain how ANY intelligence system works."
Deal with the fact that you smuggle 'intelligence' into your module with the undefined and uncharacterized 'guess' function.
Deal with the fact that 'guess' does not equal 'plan'.  Your "theory" is useless as a 'theory of intelligence' if it cannot deal with plans and planning.
Deal with the fact that many acts of intelligence involve imagination, and your "theory" does not deal with imagination at all.
Deal with the fact that some of the most crucial constraints on life are thermodynamic and that your "theory" simply ignores any and all thermodynamic issues.
Etc.

     
Quote
What is the ‘something’ that must be controlled when an intelligence creates a theory?  a musical composition?  a plan?  a story plot line?
Note that none of these require muscle activity of any sort.

What are the senses that address what memory/memories when an intelligence creates a theory?  a musical composition?  a plan?  a story plot line?
Note that each of these has been performed by individuals who lack the 'obvious' sensory modalities one would expect for the product.
Sub-question — what does it mean for memory to be sensory-addressed?  The naive view that has the senses directly writing to memory or directly “indicating” what memory to use and what to store there has been debunked many many years ago.  So what are you talking about here?

What is the measure of confidence to gauge failure and success when an intelligence creates a theory?  a musical composition?  a plan?  a story plot line?
Sub-question — what senses address what memory/memories in the creation, storage, and retrieval of the ‘confidence’ factor?  Is it analog or digital?  What process(es) modify it, at what points, and what difference does it make?

What is the ‘ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS’?  How is it manifested and how is it utilized when  an intelligence creates a theory?  a musical composition?  a plan?  a story plot line?

What is a guess?  How does ‘guess’ relate to ‘plan’ and to ‘imagination?  Are there factors that feed into/influence the guess?  Is a guess random?  If not, what regularity does it exhibit?  Is it algorithmic?  What algorithm?  Or how is the specific algorithm used chosen?
What justifies embedding ‘guess’ into the “flow” that defines “intelligence” when the ability to guess is generally taken to be an act of intelligence?  How is it we only find guessing happening when we find ‘molecular intelligence’ in your sense, i.e., biology?
(You do realize that a random number generator in a computer program does not ‘guess’?)


And questions from me:
     
Quote
Why is your rubbish not made obsolete by Edgar Postrado's rubbish?

     
Quote

It is also unreasonable to expect out of place detail that would limit the theory to only one level of intelligence (brains) of a model that has to work for any behavior, intelligent or not.


Since you see intelligence darn near everywhere at all levels, in your opinion what behavior would qualify as not intelligent, and why?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2015,16:51   

I ended up needing to go into more detail about what makes the ID model scientifically unique:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/biology....-544517

I also have to elaborate on my statement "What happens next at UD is up to those who are there, with whatever they ultimately do not much mattering to science." by saying that it is possbile for a scientifically important discovery to be made by someone at UD, but where the theory were a person it would say something like "well of course and it's about time you discovered that". A part of the theory is by virtue of its core logic just there, does not need someone at UD to notice something to be true it will test true on its own.

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

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2015,17:10   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 27 2015,17:51)
I ended up needing to go into more detail about what makes the ID model scientifically unique:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/biology....-544517

I also have to elaborate on my statement "What happens next at UD is up to those who are there, with whatever they ultimately do not much mattering to science." by saying that it is possbile for a scientifically important discovery to be made by someone at UD, but where the theory were a person it would say something like "well of course and it's about time you discovered that". A part of the theory is by virtue of its core logic just there, does not need someone at UD to notice something to be true it will test true on its own.

Oh, your "theory" is both unique and true.  Tragically (for you), where it is unique it is emphatically not true.  In those very few cases where it is true, it barely rises to the level of banal and inconsequential.

Your "theory" -- or those minuscule bits where such is possible -- has been tested, and found to be false.
Blatantly, irredeemably, irremediably false.

How about you address some of the open questions you've been running from for years?

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2015,11:40   

It chanted,
Quote
scientifically unique
, as if that meant something.  Isn't that the same thing as 'anti- or non-paradigm'?  Or maybe 'Crackpot'.  YOU be the judge.  :)  :)  :)

He's the hoot that keeps on hooting . . . . .

:)  :)  :)

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2015,12:13   

Owl be back...

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2015,12:15   

Hey Gary, what use is a proposed "theory" that can not answer relevant questions nor explain phenomena known to fall under its asserted scope?

That's the problem you keep running away from.  The problem I'm going to continue to hammer you with.

The floggings will continue until the "theory" improves.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2015,12:42   

Quote
The floggings will continue until the "theory" improves.

Using intelligently designed flagella?

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2015,15:07   

Actually, using Mjolnir, according to us nordic athiests.  :)  :)  :)

Hey, this is Thor's day, after all!!!!!!!!!

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2015,15:17   

Every year my neighbors put out a "Keep Christ in Christmas" lawn sign.
I so badly want to put up one that says "Keep Thor in Thursday".
It wouldn't be good for the peace of the neighborhood, but it would be a giant hoot ;-)

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2015,15:29   

Quote (NoName @ Jan. 29 2015,13:17)
Every year my neighbors put out a "Keep Christ in Christmas" lawn sign.
I so badly want to put up one that says "Keep Thor in Thursday".
It wouldn't be good for the peace of the neighborhood, but it would be a giant hoot ;-)

When Easter rolls around, you could ask them what they're doing to honour the Germanic goddess of the dawn.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2015,16:15   

Not to mention Odin (Jupiter/Zeus) Wednesday, Freya (Venus/Aphrodite) Friday, Saturn (Cronus) Saturday, Mars (Ares/Norse Tyr) Tuesday (I had to google two of those).

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2015,16:36   

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 29 2015,16:15)
Not to mention Odin (Jupiter/Zeus) Wednesday, Freya (Venus/Aphrodite) Friday, Saturn (Cronus) Saturday, Mars (Ares/Norse Tyr) Tuesday (I had to google two of those).

You're better off just worshipping the Sun on Sunday.  If you do it in moderation, you'll even get some vitamin D out of the deal.

--------------
"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: Jan. 29 2015,21:27   

Hopefully I'm not rushing things too much. It seems that I'm quickly running out of patience:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/biology....-545045
http://www.uncommondescent.com/biology....-545064
http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....-545050
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-545056

--------------
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: Jan. 30 2015,06:38   

Hey Gary -- what use is a "theory" that can't, or won't, answer questions?
What use is a "theory" that can't explain phenomena that clearly fall under its scope?

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2015,07:49   

Quote (NoName @ Jan. 30 2015,14:38)
Hey Gary -- what use is a "theory" that can't, or won't, answer questions?
What use is a "theory" that can't explain phenomena that clearly fall under its scope?

That's easy Gary thinks his waffle explains everything which in itself precludes said waffle from being a theory.

Gary if you want to find out what makes a scientific theory you need to check out the atheists. Why? Because god er... Sorry teh intelligent designer is not on the criteria for a scientific theory.

http://atheism.about.com/od....ory.htm

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2015,19:41   

Quote (NoName @ Jan. 30 2015,06:38)
Hey Gary -- what use is a "theory" that can't, or won't, answer questions?
What use is a "theory" that can't explain phenomena that clearly fall under its scope?

Your tactics to keep science out of ID are backfiring:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-545272

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

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2015,20:04   

Gary, you are posting links to your ignored comments which in turn link to even more of your ignored comments.

???

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2015,20:10   

Who here wants to keep science out of ID?  You've got that entirely backward.  The problem we all recognize is that they don't have any, so until they get some science and some supporting evidence, we want to keep their assertions out of science.  

Your additional problem is that you don't have any science either.  You need comprehensible arguments, operational definitions, normal use of standard terms or valid redefinitions of them, some supporting evidence for your ideas (particularly evidence the agents that you assert in fact exist and can do what you require of them), and sets of hypotheses with valid, logical, testable predictions derived from them, and so on ad infinitum.

We'd be happy (albeit also very surprised) to see some science injected into either ID or your nonsense.  If and when IDists and you actually manage to do some valid science, you'll have something that actual scientists can (and will) discuss.  Until then, it's not going to happen.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2015,20:30   

Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 30 2015,20:04)
Gary, you are posting links to your ignored comments which in turn link to even more of your ignored comments.

???

The comment I linked to is one of my responses to someone else who brought up the subject.  

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-545052

It should have been obvious that I was not being ignored. Even where I was that does not change a thing that I said (about what others wrote).

--------------
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: Jan. 30 2015,20:45   

Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 30 2015,20:10)
Who here wants to keep science out of ID?

NoName

--------------
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: Jan. 30 2015,20:46   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 30 2015,20:45)
Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 30 2015,20:10)
Who here wants to keep science out of ID?

NoName

And N.Wells

--------------
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: Jan. 30 2015,21:19   

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 30 2015,07:49)
Quote (NoName @ Jan. 30 2015,14:38)
Hey Gary -- what use is a "theory" that can't, or won't, answer questions?
What use is a "theory" that can't explain phenomena that clearly fall under its scope?

That's easy Gary thinks his waffle explains everything which in itself precludes said waffle from being a theory.

Gary if you want to find out what makes a scientific theory you need to check out the atheists. Why? Because god er... Sorry teh intelligent designer is not on the criteria for a scientific theory.

http://atheism.about.com/od....o....ory.htm

Then you need to write a science paper on why it is impossible for a "theorist" to exist, and demand that all theories that were written in the past 150 years are immediately thrown out of science.

--------------
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: Jan. 31 2015,06:40   

Again to the contrary, I would be happy to see IDists do some science.  When they remembered to do so, the original mainline IDists liked to mention possibilities for "The Designer" being a space alien ("that's why ID isn't religious, nudge, nudge, wink, wink", but as far as I've noted, few if any of them bother to keep up that pretense in recent years).  Nonetheless, it is hypothetically entirely possible that an alien civilization seeded life on earth, and may even have designed it, and one could do a lot of science about that if and when any evidence ever arose that supported it, or any tests were thought up that that proposition passed.  There is, however, zero evidence for this at present.  Moreover, I can think of plenty of potential and indeed likely evidence that would be found to support that idea if it were true, but since no such evidence exists, the idea is not at present a fruitful line of inquiry. (Moreover, there would still be the question of the origins of the alien lifeforms, and questions about the designers' methods and tools, which IDists are very eager to avoid.)  Simply lying about evolutionary theory and evidence (the way you lie about natural selection) and misunderstanding basic biology (again, like you) does not raise opposing ideas to the status of science.  It just leaves the liars looking like loons.

Your failure to raise your rubbish up to the levels of reasonable science is entirely due to you, and has nothing to do with us: notwithstanding all the hostile criticism, you have also had lots of constructive suggestions, all of which you have ignored.

Nothing k.e. said prohibits theories or theorists, but (as explained at length previously) the fact remains that your heap of hooey does not rise to the level of a theory.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2015,07:13   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 30 2015,21:45)
Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 30 2015,20:10)
Who here wants to keep science out of ID?

NoName

Citation needed.

You will not be able to find a single point at which I objected to the presence of science in ID.
In large measure (100% is a large measure, right?), this is because there is no science in ID.
Indeed, as noted above by N.Wells, we are much more about attempting to get the ID camp
a) to understand they have no science
and
b) to rectify this, which, of course, means being precise in their terms and abandoning those points on which they have been decisively shown to be wrong.

What I (and others) have done with respect to science and your scribbling is, among other things, show how your claims to be a part of Cognitive Science and use the standard Cognitive Science terms are flat out incorrect.  Dishonest even.  Specifically, your use of 'learn' and its variants are simply and totally at odds with the standard uses defined and used within Cognitive Science.

What I (and others) have done with respect to science and your scribbling is, among other things, show that your vague generalization that "certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause" is banal and uncontroversial.
I have further gone on to provide some specificity by identifying certain features of the universe that are indeed best explained by intelligent causation.  Then I have demonstrated that these features cannot be explained by your "theory".  Worse, I have shown that these features refute some if not all of your 'minimal requirements' for intelligence.

What I (and others) have done with respect to science and your scribbling is, among other things, show that your "theory" is conceptually incoherent, conceptually incomplete, self-vitiating, contradictory both internally and with known facts about the world, and thus could only be of value if it were to be printed in insoluble ink on toilet paper and distributed free to the needy.  

What I (and others) have done with respect to science and your scribbling is, among other things, point out that you have not a single piece of actual evidence to support your nonsense.  Hand-waving in the general direction of Heiserman nor Trehub counts as evidence, especially when your work makes little to no use of their actual concepts.

Finally, what I (and others) have done is  relentlessly call you out on your absurd claims, your pathetic attention-whoring, you abysmal pity-party-hosting, and your lifetime of epic failure.  We point out that in your 6+ years on the web you have convinced not one single person.  Not. One. Single. Person.
We highlight your errors, we call you on them, we refuse to let you get away with your deflection, distraction, and dishonesty maneuvers.
And worst of all, we continue to show that you have no science, you understand no science, you couldn't find science if you had a map and a flashlight (so to speak).  You have neither, and are fumbling about in the darkness.

So you lie about us, you lie to yourself about what you've done.  And the only one you're fooling, if anyone, is yourself.  You pathetic lunatic.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2015,07:20   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 30 2015,22:19)
Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 30 2015,07:49)
Quote (NoName @ Jan. 30 2015,14:38)
Hey Gary -- what use is a "theory" that can't, or won't, answer questions?
What use is a "theory" that can't explain phenomena that clearly fall under its scope?

That's easy Gary thinks his waffle explains everything which in itself precludes said waffle from being a theory.

Gary if you want to find out what makes a scientific theory you need to check out the atheists. Why? Because god er... Sorry teh intelligent designer is not on the criteria for a scientific theory.

http://atheism.about.com/od....o....ory.htm

Then you need to write a science paper on why it is impossible for a "theorist" to exist, and demand that all theories that were written in the past 150 years are immediately thrown out of science.

You do realize, don't you, that it is your "theory" that forbids the existence of such a being as a "theorist"?

Neither the conception nor working out of a 'theory' requires a control system with motor control.
Neither requires that smuggled-in stolen concept 'guess'.  There may be guesswork in pre-theoretical work, but there are many more ways new information is generated for a theory, as for a melody or harmonization, than mere 'guessing'.

Your work has no place for musical composition, comprehension, nor recognition.  Your work has no place for the generation of theories.  You work cannot explain how facts are combined into hypotheses or explanations, other than by the puerile, facile, and ultimately circular recourse to 'guessing'.

Of course if we are wrong in these assertions, surely you can show how and why we are incorrect, and provide an explanation based solely on the content of your "theory" as to how 'theorists' exist, how they form 'theories', how music can be composed, how melodies can be recognized, how harmonization is determined by a composer, and, given all that, how on earth any intelligent being can persist in claiming that all intelligence involves motor control.

But as I have been pointing out for rather more  than 200 pages now, on the grounds of your "theory" you are either not an intelligent being or you are getting exactly the results you desire from your "theory", including all the reactions and response your "theory" brings forth.
One could say that your "theory" is the ipecac of science -- it causes itself to be vomited up as unacceptable to the system, on its own merits and due to its intrinsic nature.

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

Pages: (622) < ... 426 427 428 429 430 [431] 432 433 434 435 436 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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