RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 440 441 442 443 444 [445] 446 447 448 449 450 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,09:55   

Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 26 2015,07:56)
No doubt your 'theory' explains all this.

Woodbine, I'm long overdue on congratulating you on your very finely honed snark.

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,15:09   

GOO GOO USED THE WORD 'HOOT'!  

Yet another definition blown out of his ass, or is beyond his comprehension. . . . . .

Gadzooks he's the tard that keeps on giving!  

BWAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA, GOO GOO DON'T EVER CHANGE 'CUZ YOU'RE JUST A HOOT AND A HALF & I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THE SLAPSTICK YOU DO IN HERE!

:)  :)  :)  :)  :)

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,18:42   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 26 2015,03:25)
Gary seems to have forgotten RBynum's further words that he quoted earlier, asserting that the full paragraph was what was relevant to the discussion:

     
Quote

I am aware of genetic algorithms but where is the program equivalent of a single cell organism that can evolve to a more complex state? It should be possible to start with a simple form and evolve to the intelligent form. While life took billions of years computers should evolve in a few years. Course I could just be impatient, computers have only been around a few decades. What seems like a long time is incredibly fast in evolutionary terms.


RBynum, the person asking for the information, seems to disagree with Gary's assessment of my contribution to the discussion.

Gary thinks that the results of experiments are "misleading wishful thinking", a complete inversion of the situation where I present evidence and Gary insists that "Let's pretend!" tells us something useful.

The rest seems to be Gary foaming at the mouth. Perhaps he is more than a little exercised. It's a wonder he has let me have the last word in that thread at the Kurzweil forums.

You did not score any points by advertising an Evolutionary Algorithm like Avida in a forum where experienced modelers for the most part are already aware of it and are bored by such things. That's why the primary topic of discussion are new innovations that go way beyond that into superhuman intelligence systems and uploading the contents and consciousness of a living brain into an immortal machine.

I would have been embarrassed to recommend such a tripe algorithm, in a forum like that. But if that suits thine emperor then I'm fine just letting you on your own parade that which only those worthy of their noble positions are able to see.

--------------
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: Feb. 26 2015,18:54   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 26 2015,19:42)
...

I would have been embarrassed to recommend such a tripe algorithm, in a forum like that. ...

And yet somehow you're not embarrassed to swan around like you have a contribution to make.  You don't have an algorithm, you don't even know what an algorithm is.

If you could make a contribution, you'd have operational definitions, facts, evidence, logical structure, and both a willingness and the ability to answer the questions and challenges raised against your twaddle.
Give the pretentious unjustified grandiosity a rest, you're not fooling anyone.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,19:00   

Gary's projector is blindingly bright.

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

    
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,19:04   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 26 2015,20:00)
Gary's projector is blindingly bright.

It's the only thing about him that is.

Wouldn't matter, as he is one of those who will not see.  Can't blind the eyeless.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,19:15   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 26 2015,19:00)
Gary's projector is blindingly bright.

Now that the spotlight is on you, you brushed-off their question to you which was "Could there be introspection?".

--------------
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: Feb. 26 2015,19:52   

Oh, Gary, if you were any more pointless you'd be a sphere.
But less useful and without any trace of perfection.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,20:07   

If introspection is a computable function, then of course that is a possibility.

Another evolutionary computation group with Bongard and Lipson have have some implementations with robots.

What, did Gary think that was a stumper?

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

    
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,20:41   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 26 2015,18:07)
If introspection is a computable function, then of course that is a possibility.

Another evolutionary computation group with Bongard and Lipson have have some implementations with robots.

What, did Gary think that was a stumper?

That's pretty cool.

Hey, Gary, clue for you... what did The Kinks call "The Destroyer"?

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

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,20:55   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 26 2015,20:07)
If introspection is a computable function, then of course that is a possibility.

Another evolutionary computation group with Bongard and Lipson have have some implementations with robots.

What, did Gary think that was a stumper?

Wesley, very few would be impressed by a link anyone could on their own find on the internet, especially when the question was in regards to your Avida model. In fact introspective type behavior is something I have already been discussing in the Kurzweil AI forum, and more recently as it pertains to music appreciation and machine intelligence art. That is a part of what my "Grid Cell Attractor Network for place avoidance spatial navigation" is for:

http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1

If you very closely examine what R.Bynum asked you then you should notice that the rest of the questions (pertaining to movement) are mostly rhetorical and help explain why in their opinion "It seems possible" for machine intelligence to be capable of introspection:

 
Quote
Welsberr that is very interesting. I wonder how far the evolution could go if left to run in a more complex environment? Could there be introspection? Can a system regard its actions in respect to its goals and adjust its future actions to more efficiently gain a goal? It seems possible since there are robots with a sense of balance. They can hop and knowing the dynamics of their bodies adjust their motion to keep upright. With a more sophisticated model of the environment and their movement space or range of motion a rudimentary intelligence can plan movements towards a goal.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....-692475


Giving them a link to one of thousands of people who worked on robotic "movement" ignored the question they asked you, by telling them something they apparently already knew was possible:

Quote
Movement planning is pretty much precisely where Prof. Grabowski's experiments were aiming.

An early paper on motility and tactic response

Prof. Grabowski's home page at UTPA


You brushed them off like they were a child needing a pacifier. And giving me a link to someone else who is working on what I already have online is not going to cover up your embarrassing mistake that helped expose the real you, to another forum besides this one.

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

   
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,21:00   

and zzzzzzzzzzooooommmm another one flies by, looking down at the top of GG's head.

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

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,21:26   

And it might help to mention that "introspection" is a complex ability that includes feelings and emotions that can lead to joy, sadness, outrage, and other hard to predict behaviors that are far more than planning out how to reach a goal.

Reducing introspection to the planning of movement to reach a goal is another way to brush-off those who are expecting far more than that and want to make a machine intelligence laugh, sing or cry.

--------------
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: Feb. 26 2015,23:09   

The proper definition and usage for introspection is as follows:
Quote
Full Definition of INTROSPECTION

:  a reflective looking inward :  an examination of one's own thoughts and feelings
.....

Examples of INTROSPECTION

a moment of quiet introspection
<not a man given to introspection, he grew impatient with his wife's constant need to discuss their relationship>
.....

Related to INTROSPECTION

Synonyms
self-contemplation, self-examination, self-observation, self-questioning, self-reflection, self-scrutiny, self-searching, soul-searching

Related Words
self-analysis, self-awareness, self-consciousness, self-recognition; introversion, self-absorption, self-centeredness, self-concern, self-involvement; self-actualization, self-discovery, self-exploration, self-fulfillment, self-realization; self-knowledge, self-revelation; self-concept, self-image, self-perception; contemplation, meditation, reflection, rumination

http://www.merriam-webster.com/diction....pection

And ironically a year+ ago Wesley kinda spammed a thread of mine by leaving a link back to this forum, in a topic I started for wiring together something else (the two lobe brain system) that may be vital for producing a healthy level of introspection:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....n-lobes

I have good reasons for disliking the oversimplifications that do not include the inherent ability for such things as "soul-searching" as a requirement for introspection. For example this is an illustration of what Wesley just linked to for an example that I could only qualify as a simple biologically inaccurate guidance control system that among other things is missing grid, place, border/boundary cell networks and amygdala (emotional) memory:


http://creativemachines.cornell.edu/emergen...._models

In my opinion it is misleading to use the above system as an example of introspection.

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2015,01:55   

Wow... Gary disapproves. Is that supposed to be shocking?

While Gary codes up something as an imposed algorithm and insists that "Let's pretend!" it is "soul-searching", others are working on stuff that actually, you know, evolves... like RBynum asked for. And Gary failed to deliver.

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

    
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2015,06:59   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 26 2015,21:55)
... very few would be impressed by a link anyone could on their own find on the internet...

The irony is dense enough to form a black hole.

Do you get some glimmering of why everyone everywhere on the internet has found your irrelevant music video links unimpressive?

Of course not, you have the opposite of self-awareness, and zero ability to introspect.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2015,07:02   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 27 2015,00:09)
The proper definition and usage for ...

Now fill in the blank for 'intelligence'.

Repeat for 'learn'.

Then try learning something about intelligence.

While it is obvious that your internet search skills impress you and no one  else, I'll point out that the definition for 'learn' has been repeated multiple times in this thread.
Your usage violates that definition in pretty much every respect.

You might now want to look up 'hoist' used in conjunction with 'petard'.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2015,07:05   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 27 2015,02:55)
Wow... Gary disapproves. Is that supposed to be shocking?

While Gary codes up something as an imposed algorithm and insists that "Let's pretend!" it is "soul-searching", others are working on stuff that actually, you know, evolves... like RBynum asked for. And Gary failed to deliver.

Worse, one of the root flaws of Gary's "approach" is the base assumption that any result achievable by a computable function can only be achieved by a computation.
If it is computable, it is only computable.
That birds can catch other birds in flight means they know calculus.  That baseball players catch fly balls with intent means that they, too, know calculus, regardless of whether they have been taught it or not.  Otherwise, they couldn't achieve the result.
This, of course, directly contradicts any and all claims that modeling helps explain anything at all.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2015,22:31   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 27 2015,01:55)
Wow... Gary disapproves. Is that supposed to be shocking?

While Gary codes up something as an imposed algorithm and insists that "Let's pretend!" it is "soul-searching", others are working on stuff that actually, you know, evolves... like RBynum asked for. And Gary failed to deliver.

I may be ahead of others in regards to biologically accurate machine intelligence navigation, but I never claimed that an ID Lab demonstrates introspection. That's your fantasy.

Your need to play semantics games in regards to the word "evolves" was useful for showing what kind of scam you and other "science defenders" are now involved in.

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

   
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2015,22:50   

He's so far behind, he thinks he's first:



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

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2015,23:13   

Gary has explicitly disclaimed any need for biological plausibility before, so the notion that he has anything "biologically accurate" is ever so much more laughable thereby. Hoot! (Remember the "neurons"? I do.)

I never said Gary's code already has introspection already built in. It really does pay to be able to distinguish English verb tenses.

That reading comprehension thing, Gary doesn't have much of that. What he has in plenty is projection about "semantics".

The funny thing is that if Gary had coded Heiserman's "gamma" class of robot, he could claim to have something that Heiserman would have said could make educated guesses *and* arguably have a form of introspection.

Gary also projects a bunch concerning his utter failure to answer RBynum's plain request. Gary's failure on that score is certainly not my fault; he had already "accomplished" that well before I entered the thread.

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2015,00:00   

The nutcases in this forum are being clobbered again, by the latest evidence showing that the relatively simple models I experiment with (when I can) are in fact biologically accurate!

Brain makes decisions with same method used to break WW2 Enigma code (sliding messages around on grids):
http://www.kurzweilai.net/brain-m....ma-code

Purpose of brain waves (two different 'notes' for correct guesses and wrong guesses).
http://www.presstv.com/Detail.....unction

--------------
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: Feb. 28 2015,00:57   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 27 2015,23:13)
Gary has explicitly disclaimed any need for biological plausibility before,

You are a liar.

--------------
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: Feb. 28 2015,06:19   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 28 2015,01:00)
The nutcases in this forum are being clobbered again, by the latest evidence showing that the relatively simple models I experiment with (when I can) are in fact biologically accurate!

Brain makes decisions with same method used to break WW2 Enigma code (sliding messages around on grids):
http://www.kurzweilai.net/brain-m....ma-code

Purpose of brain waves (two different 'notes' for correct guesses and wrong guesses).
http://www.presstv.com/Detail.....unction

You lie.
You have no evidence.
Your models are not biologically accurate in any respect.
The links you posted are another desperate attempt to leverage your own incomprehension to steal by mis-attribution of support the work of scientists.
It is ludicrous that you expect us to take these seriously when you invariably ignore the criticisms raised here and the linked scientific evidence that demolishes your inept little fantasies.
You have a proven and documented track record of dishonesty and an associated lack of integrity, compounded by a monstrous lack of shame.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2015,07:09   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 27 2015,23:31)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 27 2015,01:55)
Wow... Gary disapproves. Is that supposed to be shocking?

While Gary codes up something as an imposed algorithm and insists that "Let's pretend!" it is "soul-searching", others are working on stuff that actually, you know, evolves... like RBynum asked for. And Gary failed to deliver.

I may be ahead of others in regards to biologically accurate machine intelligence navigation, but I never claimed that an ID Lab demonstrates introspection. That's your fantasy.

Your need to play semantics games in regards to the word "evolves" was useful for showing what kind of scam you and other "science defenders" are now involved in.

Your view of 'biologically accurate navigation' is so entirely wrong-headed as to be laughable.
That you take it seriously and actually believe it is even biologically relevant is insane.

You do not have an accurate model of biological navigation.
The facts are against you.

But we know you lie with nearly everything you say.  It's become commonplace and tiresome, as with literally everything you do or say.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2015,08:03   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 28 2015,00:57)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 27 2015,23:13)
Gary has explicitly disclaimed any need for biological plausibility before,

You are a liar.

Really? Why is it that I can find this link, then?

Gary disclaims the need to implement actual models

My commentary following that:

Quote

Now, let's take a moment to consider Gary's blithe discussion of removing biologically-relevant modeling from his PSC code. Trehub spends considerable time in his book establishing the conditions for making models that can be supported as biologically-relevant and comparing his models to data from biology to demonstrate that his choices were consistent with that. This makes for a enlightening contrast to what we just got from Gary, especially when it comes to code that is claimed to have *amazing* consequences for the study of biology. Tofu prime rib, anyone?


And there was the whole thing about not needing any stinking neurons.

From my response:

Quote

There is a difference between talking about an artificial neural system and implementing one. There's plenty of discussion in the artificial neural system community about how biologically relevant particular models are, and there's essentially a continuum from those with higher biological relevance to those with no biological relevance. (I remember hearing a talk by Hecht-Nielsen about how glad he would be to take all the insight for ANS models from things like spin glasses and leave the realm of biology entirely.) Gary can't just invoke "neurons" and be given a pass for having established biological relevance. And Gary can't just say that stuff he does in his code is sorta kinda like "neurons", therefore it is "neurons", therefore it is completely biologically relevant.


Gary's further response shows clearly that he presumes the biology conforms to his notions, not that his notions should show biological plausibility.

Gary:

Quote

The only difference is the number of data locations the RAM has. It barely even matters, especially where it uses the good-guess trick that I explain to add the properties of neurons to a digital RAM. And RNA, DNA and other memory systems have gene-like data that is easily modeled in a digital array, which the model has to easily include. Neural networks became more of an exception, than the rule, and boils down to their being just another kind of RAM anyway.


Which after a few more iterations leads to Gary's straight-up declaration of independence from biological plausibility:

Quote

Hey Bozo, the video explains why the model does NOT need to use one of the hundreds of unnecessarily complex algorithms that you demand are necessary in a K-12 level model of how any intelligence works.


And all of that because Gary couldn't bear to admit he was wrong to claim this:

Quote

That is part of the COGNITIVE MODEL that has NEURONS that they can make virtual ROBOTS with, like I do.


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

    
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2015,08:47   

Well of course Gary lies.  7+ years of history littered across the web confirms this.
Gary has to lie, or else he will have to confront the unanimity of the evidence that he is not doing science, he is not doing 'cognitive science', he is doing modeling only  insofar as LEGO produces models of spaceships because they have a DeathStart and a Millennium Falcon kit.
Everything we know about intelligence as commonly understood, everything we know about cognition as commonly understood, everything we know about learning, as technically defined, refutes Gary's every claim.  Gary is worse than irrelevant, he is a bungler.  Cognitively inept, verbose, and burdened with both delusions of adequacy and a profound aversion to facts, evidence, and clues.

I'm very glad you found and presented the links that show how badly Gary flounders when he attempts to work within the real world that has a history and knows what he has, and has not, done.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2015,09:06   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 28 2015,08:57)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 27 2015,23:13)
Gary has explicitly disclaimed any need for biological plausibility before,

You are a liar.

Hahahahaha Jesus Fucking Christ on  a bike coming from you that is just a bit rich and precious Gary.

--------------
"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: Feb. 28 2015,09:57   

Quote
The funny thing is that if Gary had coded Heiserman's  "gamma" class of robot, he could claim to have something that Heiserman would have said could make educated guesses *and* arguably have a form of introspection.


Gamma is an entirely separate algorithm, which is in addition to the Beta algorithm base code that is either way still there. When Gamma is periodically busy scanning through all of memory to form connections in the data the system is in what is best described as a sleep mode where it is entirely unaware of what's going on while doing that long task, especially for gigabytes of memory space.

It's possible Gamma relates to why we sleep but either way it's not a requirement for the intelligence that comes from the core Beta algorithm that fills memory in the first place.

I found that memory gets connected in a Hebbian behavior sort of way after accounting for our inherent ability to take Best or Random guesses like this:
Code Sample

If FwRvCnf(H) = 0 Then
'Save Random Guess (from 1 to 3) or Best guess (stay with what's working) in RAM.
   If MtrMem(H, Addr) > 0 Or FwRvCfBit = 0 Then Guess = Fix(Rnd * 3) + 1 Else Guess = (MtrIn(Rev) * 2) + MtrIn(Fwd)
      MtrMem(H, Addr) = Replace2BitData(MtrMem(H, Addr), 1, Guess)
 End If


Address locations are on the fly firing and wiring together, learning from each other what to do in a given environmental situation to keep something successful going. When it another way ends up in that situation it knows what has a good chance of working in that situation too. I'm then not adding a whole other algorithm/system to explain, as Occam's Razor simply as possible.

   
Quote
Gary also projects a bunch concerning his utter failure to answer RBynum's plain request. Gary's failure on that score is certainly not my fault; he had already "accomplished" that well before I entered the thread.


More detail in regards to being as precise with your "evo" words as required for that venue at that time is in the "Evo Devo Universe" thread I replied to, to go with the discussion we had that span over a half dozen connected topics not one:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....niverse

As far as all the Phd's the topic was to "Throw a USB stick" at are concerned my rant was against the need for them to exist, which in turn agrees that they genuinely serve a necessary scientific purpose while doing a good job explaining what they are on a mission to somehow connect. The only thing it takes is to see "evo" words as a redundant patch-job you should be able to do without entirely, problem solved.  Therefore in the greater AI Evo Devo Universe your need to rely on "evo" words to win an argument is just an example to show what can happen by letting them go to your head. For the sake of science chanting a seemingly magic word must never give you special privileges, or a scientific right to silence what I have to share with others by labeling my work as spam.

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

   
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2015,10:07   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 28 2015,09:57)
As far as all the Phd's the topic was to "Throw a USB stick" at are concerned my rant was against the need for them to exist, which in turn agrees that they genuinely serve a necessary scientific purpose while doing a good job explaining what they are on a mission to somehow connect. The only thing it takes is to see "evo" words as a redundant patch-job you should be able to do without entirely, problem solved.  Therefore in the greater AI Evo Devo Universe your need to rely on "evo" words to win an argument is just an example to show what can happen by letting them go to your head. For the sake of science chanting a seemingly magic word must never give you special privileges, or a scientific right to silence what I have to share with others by labeling my work as spam.


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

Pages: (622) < ... 440 441 442 443 444 [445] 446 447 448 449 450 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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