RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 545 546 547 548 549 [550] 551 552 553 554 555 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2016,17:32   

You might also consider dealing with the charge that your "theory" contains not one but two vicious circularities.

You're even worse on defense than you are at offense, and you're worse than incompetent at offense.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2016,17:43   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 30 2016,17:27)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 30 2016,17:21)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 30 2016,17:16)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 30 2016,17:10)
 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 30 2016,17:01)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 30 2016,15:49)
     
Quote (ChemiCat @ April 30 2016,15:23)
Time to grow up, Gaulin, and enter the real world instead of your god-soaked fantasy

Oh forgive me oh Lord for I hath sinned!


But you're so cute when you think you're competent.

We just have to feed you from time to time.  And poke you with a stick.

Glen Davidson

Would you care to comment on the competency of those who were surprised by the following information instead of expecting it? Or are you just a troll too?

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y252364

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y252365

See, cute.

Glen Davidson

Troll.

Oh look, Gary's projecting.

He thinks he can do things.  Precious.

Glen Davidson

Oh look, Glen Davidson is unable to comment on relevant scientific information that indicates they and others in this forum are incompetent.

He must be unable to understand it.

Gary

--------------
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: April 30 2016,17:49   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 30 2016,18:43)
 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 30 2016,17:27)
...
Oh look, Gary's projecting.

He thinks he can do things.  Precious.

Glen Davidson

Oh look, Glen Davidson is unable to comment on relevant scientific information that indicates they and others in this forum are incompetent.

He must be unable to understand it.

Gary

Oh, Gary, really?  You can't even do copy-cat insults well.
It's been proven repeatedly that the only one who doesn't understand the material you quote is you.

But just for laughs, do please spell out how the link you posted either entails or is entailed by your circular "theory."

A Klein flask contains everything, a logical contradiction entails everything.  All you have is a quite silly circularity that vanishes up its own ass.

Pathetic.  As we've come to expect.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2016,19:23   

I have around tens years of work that I need to have done by Monday. It might not mean anything to those in this forum who delight in further slowing down my progress, but if none are able to ask an intelligent question then there is nothing worth answering to.

My making fools out of those in this forum who have been throwing stones qualifies as therapeutic entertainment for me, but please don't expect me to take these childish insults seriously. They at best deserve a spanking, and with all here being too old to claim child-abuse you're on your own with the consequences of being snot nosed brats.

--------------
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: April 30 2016,20:31   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 30 2016,19:23)
I have around tens years of work that I need to have done by Monday. It might not mean anything to those in this forum who delight in further slowing down my progress, but if none are able to ask an intelligent question then there is nothing worth answering to.

My making fools out of those in this forum who have been throwing stones qualifies as therapeutic entertainment for me, but please don't expect me to take these childish insults seriously. They at best deserve a spanking, and with all here being too old to claim child-abuse you're on your own with the consequences of being snot nosed brats.

Ooooooh, scary!

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

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,00:22   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 30 2016,19:23)
I have around tens years of work that I need to have done by Monday.

Shouldn't you be, you know, doing that "tens years of work"? As opposed to, you know, spending time on an online forum that you make so much noise about despising?

Quote
It might not mean anything to those in this forum who delight in further slowing down my progress…

Gaulin. Dude.

You choose to log into this online forum. Voluntarily and everything.

You choose to read what people post here. Again, voluntarily and everything.

You choose… voluntarily… to write & post responses to what you've voluntarily chosen to read here after you voluntarily chose to log in here.

As best I can tell, whatever "slowing down" (your words) may be afflicting your "progress" (again, your word) is solely and entirely the responsibility of 1 (one) person. And, also as far as I can tell, the 1 (one) person who bears responsibility for whatever "slowing down" may be afflicting your "progress" is you, Gary Gaulin.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,03:13   

Quote
...but if none are able to ask an intelligent question then there is nothing worth answering to.


But you haven't been able to answer the intelligent questions because you aren't intelligent.

So I'll try again;

How do I test for "molecular intelligence" as (not) defined by you? How does this assertion of yours fall outside the laws of chemistry and physics?

There you are. Now spend the next ten years trying to answer.

Or ask your gods for an explanation.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,06:40   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 30 2016,20:23)
I have around tens years of work

on my basic English language skills, in which I am tragically deficient.
   
Quote
that I need to have done by Monday.
So I'm going to spend part of my ever-so-precious time whining about the work I have to do in a limited amount of time.  Clearly that is the intelligent response to a problem of scarce resources.
     
Quote
It might not mean anything to those in this forum who delight in further slowing down my progress,

If only people on this forum would not post questions, objections, and pointed humor that I simply must read and ponder, sound out the words, attempt (but fail) to comprehend, and just leave me alone to post here unanswered, I'd be making more progress
     
Quote
but if none are able to ask an intelligent question then there is nothing worth answering to.

Any question I can't understand, as well as any question that points out any flaw in my notions, is, by definition, not intelligent.  QED
     
Quote
My making fools out of those in this forum
[Citation needed.  Links or it never happened.  We know how delusional you are.]
   
Quote
who have been throwing stones qualifies as therapeutic entertainment for me, but please don't expect me to take these childish insults seriously. They at best deserve a spanking, and with all here being too old to claim child-abuse you're on your own with the consequences of being snot nosed brats.

Just what consequences would those be, Gary?
Your petulant whining, your absurd music links, your deflection and distraction techniques?
These seem to be the tics you exhibit when the flaws and failures of your magnum excretus are exposed to those with some smattering of knowledge, skill, basic English competence, and intelligence.  They are not limited to this site nor this group of critics.

The treatment you get here is better than you deserve.  It is no different than the treatment you have received on any of the other science-oriented sites you pollute with your presence.

You're blaming the mirror for your own blemishes.  Hardly an act of intelligence, at least not in the real world.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,06:43   

Repeated, as this is an honest and sincere question:
how do you deal with the fact that 'guess' and 'confidence evaluation' are acts of intelligence yet are used as part of your [alleged] explanation of intelligence?
How does that not render your "theory" viciously circular?

Rocks do not guess, nor do they maintain or evaluate a confidence level in the results of guesses.
Neither do atoms, molecules, nor polymers.

How do you address the charge that it is ludicrous to attempt to explain emergence by asserting the existence of the emergent phenomena across all 'levels' involved?  How is denying the fact of emergence an explanation of emergence?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,06:44   

Quote (Cubist @ May 01 2016,00:22)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 30 2016,19:23)
I have around tens years of work that I need to have done by Monday.

Shouldn't you be, you know, doing that "tens years of work"? As opposed to, you know, spending time on an online forum that you make so much noise about despising?

 
Quote
It might not mean anything to those in this forum who delight in further slowing down my progress…

Gaulin. Dude.

You choose to log into this online forum. Voluntarily and everything.

You choose to read what people post here. Again, voluntarily and everything.

You choose… voluntarily… to write & post responses to what you've voluntarily chosen to read here after you voluntarily chose to log in here.

As best I can tell, whatever "slowing down" (your words) may be afflicting your "progress" (again, your word) is solely and entirely the responsibility of 1 (one) person. And, also as far as I can tell, the 1 (one) person who bears responsibility for whatever "slowing down" may be afflicting your "progress" is you, Gary Gaulin.

That is at least a good example of how scientifically useless y'all are.

--------------
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: May 01 2016,06:58   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 01 2016,07:44)
Quote (Cubist @ May 01 2016,00:22)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 30 2016,19:23)
I have around tens years of work that I need to have done by Monday.

Shouldn't you be, you know, doing that "tens years of work"? As opposed to, you know, spending time on an online forum that you make so much noise about despising?

 
Quote
It might not mean anything to those in this forum who delight in further slowing down my progress…

Gaulin. Dude.

You choose to log into this online forum. Voluntarily and everything.

You choose to read what people post here. Again, voluntarily and everything.

You choose… voluntarily… to write & post responses to what you've voluntarily chosen to read here after you voluntarily chose to log in here.

As best I can tell, whatever "slowing down" (your words) may be afflicting your "progress" (again, your word) is solely and entirely the responsibility of 1 (one) person. And, also as far as I can tell, the 1 (one) person who bears responsibility for whatever "slowing down" may be afflicting your "progress" is you, Gary Gaulin.

That is at least a good example of how scientifically useless y'all are.

Proving, yet again, that science may be something you've heard about, but is certainly something about which you lack even a basic clue.

Do you really think analysis is something only shrinks do???

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,08:04   

Gary, you know about Democritus, right? - the Greek who proposed that all matter was made up of atoms.  He gets a very brief honorable mention whenever the subject of discovering atoms comes up, but he really doesn't get much credit for this because he didn't do much other than popularizing the term (Leucippus actually coined the term and he gets effectively no credit whatsoever) and made a couple of lucky guesses.  This is because he had no relevant evidence and was really just spinning some elegant words.  He was actually wrong on most specifics (pointy atoms, no substructure, indestructibility, homogeneity), but his ideas provided some measure of inspiration for others.

Let's suppose (as soon as I get over laughing over the ridiculousness of the idea), that brains turn out to work exactly the way your model supposes.  What happens next?  Well, you are going to fare far less well than Democritus, for the following reasons.  

Least significant, your words are not elegant and are not going to inspire others, because much of what you say is not comprehensible.  

More seriously, you provide no supporting evidence, no adequate operational definitions, no regular redefinitions that explain your nonstandard uses of terminology, and no ways to test your ideas.  Some of the same can be said about Democritus, but with him it was easier to tell what he was talking about.  Without operational definitions and redefinitions or standard usage, it is impossible to tell precisely what you are talking about, let alone whether it actually exists.

More serious than that, you make lots of mistakes about basic information.  This absolutely shreds your credibility.  In sharp contrast, Democritus travelled widely, wrote 70 books, and was apparently highly knowledgeable, very learned, and highly credible.  He followed methods of enquiry that, while not quite science, can be considered prescientific. Because of his knowledge and his rationalist, naturalist, materialist, mechanistic approach, he was able to make some correct predictions about things that greatly enhanced his reputation.  Therefore, people had plenty of reasons to listen to Democritus, in contrast to plenty of reasons not to listen to you.  No one could build on your stuff, even if someone wanted to.

All of that would sink you beneath notice even if you did happen to right.  All the honors and plaudits and credit are going to go to whomever defines the terms, provides convincing evidence, and documents the existence of the phenomenon.  

However, worse for you, you clearly are not right.  In fact, you are more in the category of 'not even wrong'.

What rules you out from even reaching minimal Democritus-levels of value and usefulness starts with the problem that Democritus understood reasonable boundaries to his claims while you don't.  Your model does not actually address most of the stuff that you claim it does.  Your model works with variables that are labels rather than being built up from first principles. You don't have populations, generations, inheritance, competition, or reproduction, so it doesn't address evolution or natural selection.   It doesn't demonstrate or use molecular intelligence.  It isn't fractal: you don't calculate a fractal dimension (you just use a buzz-word because you think it is attractive and impressive).  It doesn't have anything to do with the Cambrian explosion or chromosomal speciation.  Etc., etc., etc.

Even worse than that, your stuff is logically inconsistent and contradictory.  For example, something that is emergent cannot be self-similar all the way down.

In short, Gary, your stuff epitomizes "scientifically useless".

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,08:23   

Quote (NoName @ April 30 2016,07:39)
Of all the many flaws and failures in your "theory", Gary, the most damaging are the fundamental ones.
Your "theory" is viciously circular, using acts of intelligence as core elements of your 'explanation' of intelligence.

Specifically, a "guess" is a product of intelligence.  It is not a random selection, it is not an 'automatic mindless process'.  It is the outcome of a process of intelligence.
Rocks do not guess.  Neither atoms nor molecules, nor do polymers such as RNA and DNA.
Trees don't guess [to the best of our ability to determine].
Guessing is part of the problem that requires explanation, not an element serving as a part of the explanation.

The same goes for 'confidence level evaluation'.  Confidence and evaluation are both intelligent processes or outcomes of the processes of intelligence.  They are not present in rocks, nor in molecules or atoms, nor in polymers such as RNA and DNA.
The existence, the emergence of those features of the universe needs to be explained.  They are not, and cannot be, part of the foundational explanation of themselves.

The problem of emergence, the 'hard problem of consciousness', is not solved by asserting, without evidence nor foundation, the existence of the emergent features at ever-lower levels of mechanical or computational reality.

Your program fails because it is raised on imaginary foundations.  Viciously circular and thus useless, it is unscientific and laughably inadequate as anything other than an example of going wrong with confidence.

With respect, I disagree, although this may be a semantic difference about what constitutes a guess more than anything else.  For me, learning from experience is intelligence at work, and the experience may be gained from having made guesses.  Likewise, making an educated guess (guessing by applying acquired knowledge and experience) is also an indicator of intelligence.  However, simple guessing need not be intelligent.  For example, some mobile bacteria, faced with uncertainty about where to go, initiate random tumbling, during which they monitor or sense environmental clues such as chemical gradients, leading them to move toward resources or away from a hostile environment.  To me, the tumble constitutes a guess, but without involving intelligence.   Initiation of tumbling can be an automatic, chemically regulated procedure.  Even the "decision" about where to go can operate by mindless and involuntary biochemical reactions rather than learning or making decisions, so it's not really a decision, just a response.  Intelligent creatures can make a guess based on a random choice, and can then learn from the experience or match past experiences to the outcome, so the guessing part is not inherently intelligent, while the doing-something-with-the-new-information part is more likely to be intelligent.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,08:51   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 01 2016,09:23)
Quote (NoName @ April 30 2016,07:39)
Of all the many flaws and failures in your "theory", Gary, the most damaging are the fundamental ones.
Your "theory" is viciously circular, using acts of intelligence as core elements of your 'explanation' of intelligence.

Specifically, a "guess" is a product of intelligence.  It is not a random selection, it is not an 'automatic mindless process'.  It is the outcome of a process of intelligence.
Rocks do not guess.  Neither atoms nor molecules, nor do polymers such as RNA and DNA.
Trees don't guess [to the best of our ability to determine].
Guessing is part of the problem that requires explanation, not an element serving as a part of the explanation.

The same goes for 'confidence level evaluation'.  Confidence and evaluation are both intelligent processes or outcomes of the processes of intelligence.  They are not present in rocks, nor in molecules or atoms, nor in polymers such as RNA and DNA.
The existence, the emergence of those features of the universe needs to be explained.  They are not, and cannot be, part of the foundational explanation of themselves.

The problem of emergence, the 'hard problem of consciousness', is not solved by asserting, without evidence nor foundation, the existence of the emergent features at ever-lower levels of mechanical or computational reality.

Your program fails because it is raised on imaginary foundations.  Viciously circular and thus useless, it is unscientific and laughably inadequate as anything other than an example of going wrong with confidence.

With respect, I disagree, although this may be a semantic difference about what constitutes a guess more than anything else.  For me, learning from experience is intelligence at work, and the experience may be gained from having made guesses.  Likewise, making an educated guess (guessing by applying acquired knowledge and experience) is also an indicator of intelligence.  However, simple guessing need not be intelligent.  For example, some mobile bacteria, faced with uncertainty about where to go, initiate random tumbling, during which they monitor or sense environmental clues such as chemical gradients, leading them to move toward resources or away from a hostile environment.  To me, the tumble constitutes a guess, but without involving intelligence.   Initiation of tumbling can be an automatic, chemically regulated procedure.  Even the "decision" about where to go can operate by mindless and involuntary biochemical reactions rather than learning or making decisions, so it's not really a decision, just a response.  Intelligent creatures can make a guess based on a random choice, and can then learn from the experience or match past experiences to the outcome, so the guessing part is not inherently intelligent, while the doing-something-with-the-new-information part is more likely to be intelligent.

The devil is in the details ;-)

What is starkly missing from Gary's use of the word 'guess' is any acknowledgement that any intelligence that guesses does so based on awareness of a 'surround'.  There is an experienced context and that context significantly influences the process of guessing.

What a guess is not, in specific and precise terms, is a random selection sans context.

What Gary means by 'guess' appears to be an entire complex of variously creative behaviors, relevant to the embodied situation of the intelligence that is guessing.  At the level of chemotaxis, there is no real guessing going on, there's just "chemistry and physics as usual."  At the level of 'guessing which way to turn' when navigating an unfamiliar city, there's far more going on than just "chemistry and physics as usual" although those are still fully in play.  IOW, the hard problem of intelligence.

That is why I claim he is being circular -- his use of 'guess', just as his use of 'confidence evaluation', smuggles intelligence into his 'explanation' of intelligence.

Of course, were Gary to be precise, to provide operational definitions, and evidence for his claims for 'guess', it might be that he is not using the term circularly, and not, thereby, hamstringing his "theory".  But from what we have seen of the precision [lol] and accuracy [lol!] of his work, and his "thought processes", the mere fact that his claims are problematic as they stand is invisible to him.

It is telling that the well-reasoned object to my critique of his notion comes not from him but from one of the people he cheerfully dismisses as an 'unscientific troll'.

You, I can discuss these issues with.  Gary, he doesn't even see that there's an issue.  
Unless he would care to chime in with some analysis and well-reasoned rejoinders rather than yet another nonsense video or pointless and badly mimic-ed attempt at insults?  Gary, here's your chance to fumble the ball yet again.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,10:30   

Quote
What Gary means by 'guess' appears to be an entire complex of variously creative behaviors, relevant to the embodied situation of the intelligence that is guessing.  At the level of chemotaxis, there is no real guessing going on, there's just "chemistry and physics as usual."  At the level of 'guessing which way to turn' when navigating an unfamiliar city, there's far more going on than just "chemistry and physics as usual" although those are still fully in play.  IOW, the hard problem of intelligence.


Well, first, clearly you haven't been a passenger in a car that I've been driving in an unfamiliar and confusing city (thinking Asia or Africa, not someplace with reliable road signs or a grid system)!

Second, as you have said, Gary's arguments are circular and he's begging his conclusions by incorporating his assumptions into his terminology.  As far as I can tell, Gary considers his model's initial random walk as "guessing" from the get-go, and he includes non-creative protist and bacterial behaviors like tumbling and subsequent chemotaxis as guesses, so he is indeed including non-creative, involuntary "decisions".  However, then he turns around and cites guessing as one of his "requirements" (I think he means diagnostics, but he'd be wrong there too). He's trying to have it both ways here.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,10:39   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 01 2016,11:30)
Quote
What Gary means by 'guess' appears to be an entire complex of variously creative behaviors, relevant to the embodied situation of the intelligence that is guessing.  At the level of chemotaxis, there is no real guessing going on, there's just "chemistry and physics as usual."  At the level of 'guessing which way to turn' when navigating an unfamiliar city, there's far more going on than just "chemistry and physics as usual" although those are still fully in play.  IOW, the hard problem of intelligence.


Well, first, clearly you haven't been a passenger in a car that I've been driving in an unfamiliar and confusing city (thinking Asia or Africa, not someplace with reliable road signs or a grid system)!

Second, as you have said, Gary's arguments are circular and he's begging his conclusions by incorporating his assumptions into his terminology.  As far as I can tell, Gary considers his model's initial random walk as "guessing" from the get-go, and he includes non-creative protist and bacterial behaviors like tumbling and subsequent chemotaxis as guesses, so he is indeed including non-creative, involuntary "decisions".  However, then he turns around and cites guessing as one of his "requirements" (I think he means diagnostics, but he'd be wrong there too). He's trying to have it both ways here.

That's our Gary -- wrong and confused, recursively.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,10:42   

The amount of damage these people have caused is so frightening I just want to drop dead right now.

--------------
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: May 01 2016,11:17   

And by the way it was in Microsoft's financial interest to cause Visual Basic programs to self-destruct in at least Windows 10. I cannot even open the forms of the ID Labs to work on them, compile or run from Visual Studio. I have to start all over again, from scratch, with a new computer language.

It was in Wells Fargo's financial interest to screw us over so badly for missing a small number of payments over the years that we now owe as much money on our home as we did 22 years ago. I'm now 59 years old and in another 30 years we will have half of it paid off. Not that I expect we will live that long.

And of course it is in the financial interests of academics who only know how to rant about mutation and selection to trash my cognitive science related work. All that we were led to believe about their being there to help with new ideas was total bullshit. The truth is that those who are receiving incredible amounts of money to give the public a show-and-tell of what they learned in school/college get to call all the shots, aimed at my head.

--------------
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: May 01 2016,11:18   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 01 2016,11:42)
The amount of damage these people have caused is so frightening I just want to drop dead right now.

Don't let us detain you.

Take note that "these people" is without referent and so meaningless.
You keep whinging about damage being done, yet you've never once substantiated the claim beyond the level of your own wildly idiosyncratic and unsupported opinion.
Just why do you think anyone would care?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,11:26   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 01 2016,12:17)
And by the way it was in Microsoft's financial interest to cause Visual Basic programs to self-destruct in at least Windows 10. I cannot even open the forms of the ID Labs to work on them, compile or run from Visual Studio. I have to start all over again, from scratch, with a new computer language.

Almost irrelevant.  No tech professional of any stripe would have recommended that you continue on with VB.  As I recall, I and a number of others have suggested over your years here that you needed to get on a more current language.
This problem has much less to do with Microsoft's financial interest than your own negligence.

 
Quote
It was in Wells Fargo's financial interest to screw us over so badly for missing a small number of payments over the years that we now owe as much money on our home as we did 22 years ago. I'm now 59 years old and in another 30 years we will have half of it paid off. Not that I expect we will live that long.

Entirely irrelevant.
And how exactly is deferring receipt of monies for that long in Wells Fargo's financial interest?  Especially with such a huge credit risk as yourself.
Again, this comes down to mis-, mal-, and nonfeasance on your part.  The home mortgage catastrophe has been going on for well over a decade.  Just who was supposed to look out for your interests other than you yourself?
But really, why should anyone here care?
Quote
And of course it is in the financial interests of academics who only know how to rant about mutation and selection to trash my cognitive science related work. All that we were led to believe about their being there to help with new ideas was total bullshit. The truth is that those who are receiving incredible amounts of money to give the public a show-and-tell of what they learned in school/college get to call all the shots, aimed at my head.

Absurd.
You know nothing about academia nor research nor where and how funding is managed.
This is pure ad hominem in defense of your own battered ego, trying to bear up under all the damage your own incompetence has inflicted on your life.

Science *lives* for confrontation, disruption, the overthrow of hypotheses, the generation and evaluation of evidence.
The reason it ignores you, and that's all it is, passive lack of attention to you in your soft pink irrelevancy, is because you have no hypotheses, you have no ability to interact with confrontation, and have literally no evidence whatsoever.

So cry me a river, loser.  You are reaping what you yourself have sown.  It's not the world's problem that you were sold a bunch of sterile beans under the guise of dragon's teeth and when you cast them behind you they failed to come up dragons.  Or anything else.

NONE of what you are whinging about is anyone's fault, nor anyone's problem, other than your own.  Man up and deal with it, or continue on as you have your entire life.
Blaming others for your mistakes is like blaming the mirror for your blemishes.
Get over yourself.  Do the work.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,11:42   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 01 2016,11:17)
And by the way it was in Microsoft's financial interest to cause Visual Basic programs to self-destruct in at least Windows 10. I cannot even open the forms of the ID Labs to work on them, compile or run from Visual Studio. I have to start all over again, from scratch, with a new computer language.

Have you tried stuff like
http://nuke.vbcorner.net/Article....lt.aspx
http://www.fortypoundhead.com/showcon....d=23993

Quote
And of course it is in the financial interests of academics who only know how to rant about mutation and selection to trash my cognitive science related work. All that we were led to believe about their being there to help with new ideas was total bullshit. The truth is that those who are receiving incredible amounts of money to give the public a show-and-tell of what they learned in school/college get to call all the shots, aimed at my head.

Wrong, no one has an obligation to help you, or a financial interest in crushing you.  If you think you have something worthwhile, you can present it, and it is up to you to provide reasons for people to get interested.   That's the same for any scientist: each of us proposes stuff, and then other scientists figure out whether you have anything that is worth their time and attention.  Our advice is that your stuff is worthless and you'd be far better off concentrating on something less hopeless and useless and wrong that could help support your family.  That's excellent and financially valuable advice, and you are getting it for free.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,13:13   

No-one is out to get you, Gary. You're just not important enough to have enemies.

--------------
"[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: May 01 2016,14:28   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 01 2016,11:42)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 01 2016,11:17)
And by the way it was in Microsoft's financial interest to cause Visual Basic programs to self-destruct in at least Windows 10. I cannot even open the forms of the ID Labs to work on them, compile or run from Visual Studio. I have to start all over again, from scratch, with a new computer language.

Have you tried stuff like
http://nuke.vbcorner.net/Article....lt.aspx
http://www.fortypoundhead.com/showcon....d=23993

I already found the same links you did. The problem is that it's already properly installed and was working well enough with Windows 10 to still use. The problem now is that newer versions of Windows no longer have all the files needed for the programs to properly run for others, and one of the more recent updates caused it to no longer run or compile on my end either. I was able to get the ID Lab #5 running for Camp who reported a problem I was able to fix by reducing the amount of time the program can stay running before the time step counter goes back to zero, but I am certain that Microsoft will soon do something else to disable it. Reinstalling VB6 all over again would at best fix a few of the tiny holes in a ship that was purposely blown to bits and sinking anyway. The best thing to do is for me to abandon ship, right now, then never ever go back to a Microsoft product.

Since one of the first languages I became proficient at is Assembler I'm thinking of switching to MASM32, even though it is not a cross platform language like C++ or Java and requires users to understand the inner workings of a PC.

Quote (N.Wells @ May 01 2016,11:42)
Quote
And of course it is in the financial interests of academics who only know how to rant about mutation and selection to trash my cognitive science related work. All that we were led to believe about their being there to help with new ideas was total bullshit. The truth is that those who are receiving incredible amounts of money to give the public a show-and-tell of what they learned in school/college get to call all the shots, aimed at my head.

Wrong, no one has an obligation to help you, or a financial interest in crushing you.  If you think you have something worthwhile, you can present it, and it is up to you to provide reasons for people to get interested.   That's the same for any scientist: each of us proposes stuff, and then other scientists figure out whether you have anything that is worth their time and attention.  Our advice is that your stuff is worthless and you'd be far better off concentrating on something less hopeless and useless and wrong that could help support your family.  That's excellent and financially valuable advice, and you are getting it for free.

In the previous pages I have been posting the latest papers that prove I am way ahead in the "basic science" that is going to force even the "deep learning" methodology that's now all the rage in academia back to the drawing board, unless of course it's only used for consumer products like self-driving cars where biological type intelligence would not work because of it getting bored by doing the same thing all day and become dangerous when abused because it will fight back and likely win.

In regards to the development of biological species ("evolution") the evidence shows that I was right, while you and others have been playing with your Darwinian toys that could not predict regulated circuits the model I have been developing requires.

A person has to have been born yesterday to believe that someone like me would be treated fairly by a system that normally only rewards the academic money pits. That is not to say all academic programs are a money pit, just the ones I'm up against that proved to want nothing at all to do with truly biologically relevant models like mine.

--------------
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: May 01 2016,14:39   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 01 2016,15:28)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ May 01 2016,11:42)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 01 2016,11:17)
And by the way it was in Microsoft's financial interest to cause Visual Basic programs to self-destruct in at least Windows 10. I cannot even open the forms of the ID Labs to work on them, compile or run from Visual Studio. I have to start all over again, from scratch, with a new computer language.

Have you tried stuff like
http://nuke.vbcorner.net/Article....lt.aspx
http://www.fortypoundhead.com/showcon....d=23993

I already found the same links you did. The problem is that it's already properly installed and was working well enough with Windows 10 to still use. The problem now is that newer versions of Windows no longer have all the files needed for the programs to properly run for others, and one of the more recent updates caused it to no longer run or compile on my end either. I was able to get the ID Lab #5 running for Camp who reported a problem I was able to fix by reducing the amount of time the program can stay running before the time step counter goes back to zero, but I am certain that Microsoft will soon do something else to disable it. Reinstalling VB6 all over again would at best fix a few of the tiny holes in a ship that was purposely blown to bits and sinking anyway. The best thing to do is for me to abandon ship, right now, then never ever go back to a Microsoft product.

That's really not what you said before, now is it?
Plus, in your usual style, you manage to contradict yourself -- from "it works well enough on Windows 10" to "will no longer compile or run" in the space of a single paragraph.
Then liberally dosed with heaps of speculation.
I it any wonder no one trust much of anything you say?
 
Quote
...
   
Quote (N.Wells @ May 01 2016,11:42)
   
Quote
And of course it is in the financial interests of academics who only know how to rant about mutation and selection to trash my cognitive science related work. All that we were led to believe about their being there to help with new ideas was total bullshit. The truth is that those who are receiving incredible amounts of money to give the public a show-and-tell of what they learned in school/college get to call all the shots, aimed at my head.

Wrong, no one has an obligation to help you, or a financial interest in crushing you.  If you think you have something worthwhile, you can present it, and it is up to you to provide reasons for people to get interested.   That's the same for any scientist: each of us proposes stuff, and then other scientists figure out whether you have anything that is worth their time and attention.  Our advice is that your stuff is worthless and you'd be far better off concentrating on something less hopeless and useless and wrong that could help support your family.  That's excellent and financially valuable advice, and you are getting it for free.

In the previous pages I have been posting the latest papers that prove I am way ahead in the "basic science"

Citation needed.
 
Quote
that is going to force even the "deep learning" methodology that's now all the rage in academia back to the drawing board, unless of course it's only used for consumer products like self-driving cars where biological type intelligence would not work because of it getting bored by doing the same thing all day and become dangerous when abused because it will fight back and likely win.

Your English teacher would be so proud of you.  That's a run-on sentence for the textbooks, that is.
 
Quote
In regards to the development of biological species ("evolution") the evidence shows that I was right, while you and others have been playing with your Darwinian toys that could not predict regulated circuits the model I have been developing requires.

Which model has nothing to do with biology or reproduction or speciation.  At all.
 
Quote
A person has to have been born yesterday to believe that someone like me would be treated fairly by a system that normally only rewards the academic money pits. That is not to say all academic programs are a money pit, just the ones I'm up against that proved to want nothing at all to do with truly biologically relevant models like mine.

Ah, so you know much better than anyone involved in academic pursuits or business how they "really" work, simply by virtue of not having been born yesterday.
How impressive.
roflmao

You are a pathetic failure, Gary, driven to go form posting threats of suicide to posting dishonest self-aggrandizing bullshit like this in a matter of hours.
You might have a medical condition, you should seek help.
You definitely have a psychological suite of issues.  Hard to imagine how they fit into your two brain cells, but there you go.
As we've said all along, the one thing at which you excel is failure.  You've certainly perfected it.

And you haven't even begun to address the many flaws with your "theory" that have been pointed out.  It remains viciously circular, incoherent, badly expressed, and unsupported by any evidence.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,14:46   

Quote
In the previous pages I have been posting the latest papers that prove I am way ahead in the "basic science" ......

In regards to the development of biological species ("evolution") the evidence shows that I was right, ....

With respect to the first, you have claimed that insects have hippocampi, that salmon are devoted parents, that baby crocs scurry into their mothers' mouths when threatened, along with all sorts of nonsense about natural selection,  emergence, fractals, giraffe vocalization, molecular intelligence, the Cambrian "explosion", and I've forgotten what all else, but the list keeps going.  This doesn't even get to your misuse and misapplication of terms like "Darwinian", "theory", "operational definitions", "predictions", "intelligence", "learning", and so on and so forth, and your constant pratfall howlers along the lines of claiming that Evolutionary Theory does not get into details of mate selection.  This shows that you are way behind the 8-ball in terms of basic science.

As yet you have yet to demonstrate being more right than biologists about anything with respect to the development of biological species.  What you've said that's right is old, and much of the rest is unsupported assertions that conflict with what we know.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,14:59   

Quote (fnxtr @ May 01 2016,13:13)
No-one is out to get you, Gary. You're just not important enough to have enemies.

From the number of hits on my intelligence related websites I at least have plenty of friends in Russia, Ukraine and other places that are now kicking your asses in military innovation that even makes the US missile defense systems a useless deterrent. So I guess you're right, I'm not important enough to have enemies that would just as well nuke your ass real good.

Now should I feel good about that? Or do I have a good excuse for my nightmares?

--------------
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: May 01 2016,15:06   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 01 2016,14:59)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ May 01 2016,13:13)
No-one is out to get you, Gary. You're just not important enough to have enemies.

From the number of hits on my intelligence related websites I at least have plenty of friends in Russia, Ukraine and other places that are now kicking your asses in military innovation that even makes the US missile defense systems a useless deterrent. So I guess you're right, I'm not important enough to have enemies that would just as well nuke your ass real good.

Now should I feel good about that? Or do I have a good excuse for my nightmares?

 
Quote
the US missile defense systems a useless deterrent
It's always been problematic ever since its early days of being a Reagan boondoggle, so I'm not sure what your point is there.

Russia had a program investigating ESP.  They are more than welcome to your nonsense too, should they be silly enough to want it.

 
Quote
I at least have plenty of friends in Russia, Ukraine and other places that are now kicking your asses in military innovation ..... So I guess you're right, I'm not important enough to have enemies that would just as well nuke your ass real good.
Either your logic or your English is screwed up there - if they are your friends, then they aren't your enemies.  Also, since when is Ukraine kicking our ass militarily and looking forward to nuking us?

Quote
Quote
(N.Wells @ April 24 2016,19:48)
To go way back to the early days of this thread, which is the most intelligent, which is the least intelligent, and by how much relative to the average value: a mushroom, an oak tree, a full set of chromosomes for one Allium cepa individual, and an amoeba?

I already gave you the information needed for you to figure it out for yourself.

You haven't ever answered that question, and your ideas won't be worth much until you can.  You don't have the operational definitions that you sorely need.  I'm anticipating another music video or evasion, but go ahead and prove me wrong here.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,15:08   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 01 2016,15:59)
Quote (fnxtr @ May 01 2016,13:13)
No-one is out to get you, Gary. You're just not important enough to have enemies.

From the number of hits on my intelligence related websites I at least have plenty of friends in Russia, Ukraine and other places that are now kicking your asses in military innovation that even makes the US missile defense systems a useless deterrent. So I guess you're right, I'm not important enough to have enemies that would just as well nuke your ass real good.

Now should I feel good about that? Or do I have a good excuse for my nightmares?

Do you have the faintest clue how many troll-bots and fishing-expedition-bots are hosted in those countries?
The tiny little strictly local startup I was involved with got many hits an hour from Russia, Ukraine, various states in Africa, etc.  They're not 'real' hits.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,15:11   

If you're going to re-write your absurd little piece of software, for god's sake don't do it in assembler.

Consider using Python -- you could distribute an actual fully-compiled executable and be reasonably cross-platform if you used the TKinter package that's included with the standard distribution.  Plus you'll have a host of math and science libraries available so you can use standard functionality without having to reinvent the wheel.
But that would bring your work far far too close to real-world development, wouldn't it?

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,15:17   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 01 2016,14:59)
Quote (fnxtr @ May 01 2016,13:13)
No-one is out to get you, Gary. You're just not important enough to have enemies.

From the number of hits on my intelligence related websites I at least have plenty of friends in Russia, Ukraine and other places that are now kicking your asses in military innovation that even makes the US missile defense systems a useless deterrent. So I guess you're right, I'm not important enough to have enemies that would just as well nuke your ass real good.

Now should I feel good about that? Or do I have a good excuse for my nightmares?

sounds like you are giving them the ability to nuke our asses "real good".  It's a wonder the NSA hasn't shut you down.  Perhaps you should delete your work before you get us all killed.

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

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

Pages: (622) < ... 545 546 547 548 549 [550] 551 552 553 554 555 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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