RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 568 569 570 571 572 [573] 574 575 576 577 578 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2016,19:04   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 20 2016,18:58)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Aug. 20 2016,18:48)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 20 2016,18:26)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 19 2016,00:22)
   
Quote
N.Wells I just knew you would dance around to that one. There is no way you can beat an operational definition with enough information in it to model from.


So, if you knew that was coming, then what are your answers?  And how does someone go about verifying those answers?

I'm currently testing that and other things, in the thread I started at the Kurzweil AI forum. In this reply the phrase "Why sleep evolved" ended up becoming scientifically useless, but the rest of the information was useful:

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/why-do-we-have-to-sleep#post-769365

From one of your comments there:
 
Quote
From what I can gather what we call "sleep" was there since the very first cells, which caused the same to emerge in multicellular plants and animals, not something that "evolved" over time.

This is one of the stupidest things you've said to date. Do you know why?

So you think you have something to add eh?

It does not matter to me which way the evidence goes. Show me what you got!

That's either a "no", or "I'm embarrassed to admit how stupid that was".

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2016,19:22   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 20 2016,19:04)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 20 2016,18:58)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Aug. 20 2016,18:48)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 20 2016,18:26)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 19 2016,00:22)
       
Quote
N.Wells I just knew you would dance around to that one. There is no way you can beat an operational definition with enough information in it to model from.


So, if you knew that was coming, then what are your answers?  And how does someone go about verifying those answers?

I'm currently testing that and other things, in the thread I started at the Kurzweil AI forum. In this reply the phrase "Why sleep evolved" ended up becoming scientifically useless, but the rest of the information was useful:

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/why-do-we-have-to-sleep#post-769365

From one of your comments there:
   
Quote
From what I can gather what we call "sleep" was there since the very first cells, which caused the same to emerge in multicellular plants and animals, not something that "evolved" over time.

This is one of the stupidest things you've said to date. Do you know why?

So you think you have something to add eh?

It does not matter to me which way the evidence goes. Show me what you got!

That's either a "no", or "I'm embarrassed to admit how stupid that was".

I'm always proud to have to recognize others who find useful evidence. The problem is that analogies to a generalization is not evidence to explain how the systems biology of works. But it's not too late to edit what I said at the AI forum, just in case an error that needs correcting is found. Better that than not know.

To help build the excitement: check out what even a farm truck and such can do, when it has enough horse power behind it:
Unbelievable Drag Races of All time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
youtu.be/K4_79-xofwI?t=3m10s

--------------
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: Aug. 20 2016,19:26   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 20 2016,19:22)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 20 2016,19:04)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 20 2016,18:58)
   
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Aug. 20 2016,18:48)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 20 2016,18:26)
     
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 19 2016,00:22)
       
Quote
N.Wells I just knew you would dance around to that one. There is no way you can beat an operational definition with enough information in it to model from.


So, if you knew that was coming, then what are your answers?  And how does someone go about verifying those answers?

I'm currently testing that and other things, in the thread I started at the Kurzweil AI forum. In this reply the phrase "Why sleep evolved" ended up becoming scientifically useless, but the rest of the information was useful:

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/why-do-we-have-to-sleep#post-769365

From one of your comments there:
     
Quote
From what I can gather what we call "sleep" was there since the very first cells, which caused the same to emerge in multicellular plants and animals, not something that "evolved" over time.

This is one of the stupidest things you've said to date. Do you know why?

So you think you have something to add eh?

It does not matter to me which way the evidence goes. Show me what you got!

That's either a "no", or "I'm embarrassed to admit how stupid that was".

I'm always proud to have to recognize others who find useful evidence. The problem is that analogies to a generalization is not evidence to explain how the systems biology of works. But it's not too late to edit what I said at the AI forum, just in case an error that needs correcting is found. Better that than not know.

To help build the excitement: check out what even a farm truck and such can do, when it has enough horse power behind it:
Unbelievable Drag Races of All time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
youtu.be/K4_79-xofwI?t=3m10s

0%. Not an answer to the question. Try harder.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2016,19:38   

I might perhaps be argued that not all animals have to sleep. If true then how they can do that needs to be explained.

For plants:
sleep.org/articles/do-plants-sleep/

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2016,19:40   

And ants:
https://www.theguardian.com/notesan....00.html
Quote
Do ants sleep?
YES, THEY DO - but not in the sense we understand sleep. Research conducted by James and Cottell into sleep patterns of insects (1983) showed that ants have a cyclical pattern of resting periods which each nest as a group observes, lasting around eight minutes in any 12-hour period. Although this means two such rest periods in any 24-hour period, only one of the rest periods bears any resemblance to what we would call sleep. Mandible and antennae activity is at a much lower level (usually up to 65 per cent lower) than during the other rest period in one 24-hour period, indicating a much deeper "resting" phase. Basing and McCluskey in 1986 used brain activity recorders on black, red, and soldier ants to determine whether the deeper resting period constituted actual "sleep". A steep decline in brain wave fluctuations supported the "sleep" hypothesis in black and red ants, but surprisingly showed a higher level of brain activity in soldier ants in a deep resting phase.
Kathleen Thorpe, London SW11.


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

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2016,21:47   

Quote
The problem is that analogies to a generalization is not evidence to explain how the systems biology of works.

Say what?


What's your operational definition of "sleep"?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2016,22:48   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 20 2016,21:47)
 
Quote
The problem is that analogies to a generalization is not evidence to explain how the systems biology of works.

Say what?

What's your operational definition of "sleep"?

From what I have so far:
Sleep is the growth and repair part of a two part cycle found in all cells and the multicellular plant and animal bodies that are emergent from them. The other part of the cycle is a food gathering/production phase that wears cells down over time, which results in their needing to sleep again.

And for your Sunday pleasure is this I wrote for the Reddit Creation and ID forum:

 
Quote
In my child to adult Methodist training God is an "always was and always will be" sort of thing. Big Bang Theory suggests otherwise, but not when a scientific model similar to this one is included:

www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O142-oscillatingUniversetheory.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

http://www.universetoday.com/38195......-theory

As in the above model: God is expected to be timeless. Hard to say whether it's possible for such a thing to have a start. Otherwise is a paradox that to at least me makes it less likely that there once was a nothingness where not even the force filled vacuum of "outer space" where there is little solid matter but something is none the less there. It's also interesting to note that adding the positive and negative half-cycles of a wave together equals zero, nothing. Each wave is like the other, along with whatever modulation makes them all slightly different, yet over infinite time also adds up to zero. It's in a way like the law of "conservation of matter" where change in form can happen but nothing is ever lost into a void of nothingness. All balances out everything (in one form or another) still being there.

Intelligence that develops in each might be able to add modulation to the waves that makes our possible future returns to this planet more promising. The oscillating universe model predicts that a half-wave experience is possible, that over time (except for self-modulation) goes exactly the same as its opposite wave.

That is the latest I have to make sense to at least the Methodism I learned, from many years of Sunday School and other training to prepare me to one day be a religious leader. I take the miracles attributed to Jesus to his knowing what scientists and physicians were experimenting with, which literally would have brought the otherwise for sure dead back to life again but that was because of his knowledge of human physiology. Chemists were experimenting with colorless pH indicators that from all they knew appeared to turn to wine when the pH of an empty vessel turned it to that color.

It may to some seem like my seeing Jesus as a before their time scientist is a bad thing for a religion like Methodism. But with all said: if the best science could ever do to take away from the legend of Jesus (also Moses) is make him a legendary (in their day) scientist then it's as good as revenge for even trying, by going there leading to skeptics having to at least admire him for that instead.

The clergy of the United Methodist Church is well set for the future. And it just so happens that the Discovery Institute accidentally helped. In case you missed it:

www.inumc.org/postdetail/quick-to-listen-slow-to-speak-and-even-slower-to-get-angry-3699368#comment-2497031157

There is no Godly need to be adversarial to science. From the theory I have we are are indeed a trinity of intelligence levels in one, and talking only 6 or so thousand of years has a way of belittling our Creator. I sense that science is the path we were destined to take, where following the scientific evidence wherever it leads keeps us heading in a direction where we all want to go. The other intelligence levels in us through reciprocal cause can to some extent share in the thrill of discovery too. Finding out for ourselves is a meant to be thing. From my experience: what does not make sense after being scientifically tested leads to something even better. The best thing to do is move things along as quickly as possible. As a result I now have what I just explained to you, to help keep science and religion in perfect harmony.


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

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2016,02:36   

Quote
There is no Godly need to be adversarial to science. From the theory I have we are are indeed a trinity of intelligence levels in one, and talking only 6 or so thousand of years has a way of belittling our Creator. I sense that science is the path we were destined to take, where following the scientific evidence wherever it leads keeps us heading in a direction where we all want to go. The other intelligence levels in us through reciprocal cause can to some extent share in the thrill of discovery too. Finding out for ourselves is a meant to be thing. From my experience: what does not make sense after being scientifically tested leads to something even better. The best thing to do is move things along as quickly as possible. As a result I now have what I just explained to you, to help keep science and religion in perfect harmony.


Gaulin, Gaulin, Gaulin, do you ever read your bullshit? Before posting try to get somebody to read it back to you. When they stop laughing at you, that is.

Quote
From the theory I have we are are indeed a trinity of intelligence levels in one,...


You have no theory until you provide testable evidence for your wild assertions.

Quote
where following the scientific evidence wherever it leads keeps us heading in a direction where we all want to go.


What evidence? You have provided none to explain your 'theory'. WE have been asking for your 'evidence' for page after page, so where is it? Plagiarising the work of others, Trelub etc., does nothing but show that your 'theory' is no such thing.

Quote
From my experience: what does not make sense after being scientifically tested leads to something even better.


I think this rubbish means that experiments have to be performed to verify or reject an hypothesis, I think. If this is the correct interpretation of this mangled English, where are your repeatable tests to verify/reject your 'theory'?





Quote
I take the miracles attributed to Jesus to his knowing what scientists and physicians were experimenting with, which literally would have brought the otherwise for sure dead back to life again but that was because of his knowledge of human physiology.


Even your apologetics are scrambled. Where in your holey book is your Jesus described as an anatomist? Where are the diagrams of human anatomy. You are making this up just like you made up your not-a-theory.

Quote
As in the above model: God is expected to be timeless. Hard to say whether it's possible for such a thing to have a start. Otherwise is a paradox that to at least me makes it less likely that there once was a nothingness where not even the force filled vacuum of "outer space" where there is little solid matter but something is none the less there.


This must make sense somewhere in the universe. 'Paradox' another word you don't understand. Why a timeless god and not a timeless universe?

Your attempt at science is rubbish, your theology is non-existent and you cosmology is twisted out of all coherence. The average K to 12 has a better understanding of these subjects than you ever will.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2016,06:46   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 20 2016,20:22)
... The problem is that analogies to a generalization is not evidence to explain how the systems biology of works. ...

The sheer magnificence of this example of Gaulinese is breathtaking.
Grammar, syntax, semantics, syntactics, all lie bleeding, fatally wounded by Gary's complete and total inability to "think" or work at any level beyond that of the single word.

It has been said that 'language is the engine of thought'.  One must suppose that Gaulin mistook 'piston' for 'pissed on'.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2016,06:50   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 20 2016,22:48)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 20 2016,21:47)
     
Quote
The problem is that analogies to a generalization is not evidence to explain how the systems biology of works.

Say what?

What's your operational definition of "sleep"?

From what I have so far:
Sleep is the growth and repair part of a two part cycle found in all cells and the multicellular plant and animal bodies that are emergent from them. The other part of the cycle is a food gathering/production phase that wears cells down over time, which results in their needing to sleep again.

(You still don't know the definition of an operational definition.)

I think that's too simplistic a view.
From http://psych.fullerton.edu/mwhite.....eep.pdf , with minor changes & reformatting.
Quote

Duck-billed Platypus – sleeps 8 hours/24, has REM and NREM
Echidna– has NREM, but no REM
All therian mammals – have both REM and NREM, but with different patterns, timing, amounts of these sleep stages

What about earlier than mammals?  
What about sleep in invertebrates?
What about sleep in fish, reptiles, and birds?
As usual, it depends on your (operational) definition of what SLEEP is!

3.
How to Define Sleep
    sleep is not rest
    sleep is not torpor
    sleep is not coma
    sleep does not mean immobility
    sleep does not mean lying down
    sleep does not mean having closed eyes
    Sleep is a) a lack of/decrease in awareness of environmental stimuli
                 b) the maintenance of core body temperature (in homeotherms)
                 c) relatively easily reversible (to wakefulness)
                 d) has distinct EEG patterns (different from wake)
                 e) has spontaneous occurrences with an endogenous periodicity (independent of other bodily needs and environmental cues)
                 note: researchers using non-humans (especially invertebrates) often use more
behavioral definitions:
                     Inactivity
                     Subject is difficult to arouse (but can be aroused)
                     Stereotypic postures (often species-specific)
                     Predictable cycles
                     Rapid return to wake/activity once aroused
                     If the subject is prevented from “sleep”, the subject becomes more prone to inactivity
    Thus, the most complex expression of what sleep is is found in the EEG wave changes seen in mammals (complex brains).  However, more basic processes (such as behavioral changes) most likely also represent a kind of “sleep”, even  though no such EEG patterns have been (or are likely to be?) recorded.

    So...what about those fish, lizards, birds and bees?

4. Fish and Amphibians
    show periods of activity and inactivity, cyclic
    show less response to environmental stimuli in “quiet” times, but are not unresponsive...so maybe are just “resting”
    EEG data scarce, but do not look much different from being awake

5. Reptiles
    EEG distinctly different from wake (low voltage, faster 11 - 13 cps)
         High amplitude, sharp spikes, low frequency (6 - 8 cps)
    Muscle relaxation = SWS
?     May show evidence of “precursor REM”: clustered bursts of REMs, Front paw twitches, occurs cyclicly ; no change in EEG
    Recorded in Caimans, chameleons, other lizards, turtles

6. Birds
    EEG has distinct sleep stages, including SWS and brief bursts of paradoxical sleep (10 - 15 second duration bursts)
    Note: Would be see more paradoxical sleep if we recorded EEG is hatchlings?
         Yes (hatchlings: 7.5% vs. adults: < 1%)
         Same phenomenon seen in mammals: all species of mammals have greater percentage of REM in fetus/neonate than in adults (kittens have 90% REM in 1 - 10 days post-natal; neonate rats >90% REM)
      In paradoxical sleep in birds: see “alert” EEG, loss of muscle tone (note: foot tendons can lock foot in grip position while muscles relaxed)
      Predatory birds have more paradoxical sleep than do prey birds.  Why?  TST averages 7.75 hours/day
    Unihemispheric sleep in roosting birds: “sleep” EEG in brain hemisphere contralateral to closed eye, wake EEG in brain hemisphere contralateral to open eye
         note: unihemispheric sleep seen also in Cetaceans ...Why?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2016,06:55   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 20 2016,19:58)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Aug. 20 2016,18:48)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 20 2016,18:26)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 19 2016,00:22)
     
Quote
N.Wells I just knew you would dance around to that one. There is no way you can beat an operational definition with enough information in it to model from.


So, if you knew that was coming, then what are your answers?  And how does someone go about verifying those answers?

I'm currently testing that and other things, in the thread I started at the Kurzweil AI forum. In this reply the phrase "Why sleep evolved" ended up becoming scientifically useless, but the rest of the information was useful:

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/why-do-we-have-to-sleep#post-769365

From one of your comments there:
   
Quote
From what I can gather what we call "sleep" was there since the very first cells, which caused the same to emerge in multicellular plants and animals, not something that "evolved" over time.

This is one of the stupidest things you've said to date. Do you know why?

So you think you have something to add eh?

It does not matter to me which way the evidence goes. Show me what you got!

You first.

Gary, where, and how, is sleep entailed by your "theory"?
Where and how are dreams entailed by your "theory"?  
How does your "theory" suggest any form of 'memory re-organization' or 'restructuring'?  To suggest that this is what 'dreams' are is a grandiloquent non sequitur.
Worse, how can any such process proceed when, according to the circuit diagram, memory is directly tied to (and only to) sensory input and a 'guess' element?

This is yet another example of how your lack of any operational definition of "intelligence" lets you simply pick and choose any birth and shiny notion and then add it to your effluent stream.
How is 'sleep', as such, relevant to 'intelligence'?  How is intelligence related to sleep?  You're switching back and forth from 'intelligence' to 'consciousness' without ever noticing the move.
As noted before, the complete lack of any hint of definitions, let alone operational definitions, means you quite literally do not know what you are talking about.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2016,09:34   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 21 2016,06:50)
I think that's too simplistic a view.
From
?????????????????????

Nice find, but your link to it crashed.

The problem with my operational definition is it needs an explanation of the underlying cell (respiration?) cycle that in neural systems leads to a reduction in external awareness, a sleep state. Sleep can be interrupted by waking them, which makes it a less than total loss of consciousness.

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

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2016,09:50   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 21 2016,10:34)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 21 2016,06:50)
I think that's too simplistic a view.
From
?????????????????????

Nice find, but your link to it crashed.

The problem with my operational definition is it needs an explanation of the underlying cell (respiration?) cycle that in neural systems leads to a reduction in external awareness, a sleep state. Sleep can be interrupted by waking them, which makes it a less than total loss of consciousness.

No, the problem with your 'operational definition' is that it is entirely missing.

But do take note of the fact that your 'circuit diagram' pseudo-model of intelligence fails to account for, let lone accommodate any of the relevant factors listed in N.Wells' post.

Try better.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2016,10:42   

Gary, do please pay attention to what any definition has to do.
A definition segregates the world into things that 'pass' the definition and 'everything else'.
It is pointless, worse, it is useless, to claim to have a definition of something where only some of those things meet the definition.  
It may sometimes be useful, even acceptable, to offer up definitions that include the things defined and some other things which turn out to  need to be excluded.  This is how definitions are refined and improved.
It is rarely, if ever, useful to offer up a 'definition' that allows entire classes of examples to be excluded.
Operationalizing a definition is certainly a pre-requisite to scientifically refining the definition(s) in question.  Otherwise what you have is of no use to anyone.
We've repeatedly seen that your "model" fails precisely because you want to claim that your 'circuit diagram' defines 'intelligence' yet we are able to trivially produce examples of things/acts that generally counts as intelligence that do not fall into line with your diagram.

That your problems merely compound from there is a topic we can pursue once you are able to unequivocally provide a definition that will fit all and only those acts that properly count as intelligent.
Until then, well, as your every post makes obvious, you do not know what you are talking about.

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2016,11:04   

Quote (NoName @ Aug. 21 2016,07:46)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 20 2016,20:22)
... The problem is that analogies to a generalization is not evidence to explain how the systems biology of works. ...

The sheer magnificence of this example of Gaulinese is breathtaking.
Grammar, syntax, semantics, syntactics, all lie bleeding, fatally wounded by Gary's complete and total inability to "think" or work at any level beyond that of the single word.

It has been said that 'language is the engine of thought'.  One must suppose that Gaulin mistook 'piston' for 'pissed on'.

POTW

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2016,13:39   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Aug. 21 2016,00:36)
Gaulin, Gaulin, Gaulin,


Rawhiiiide!

--------------
"[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

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2016,16:08   

Quote
Rawhiiiide!


Well his backside has been flayed raw! Can he take any more punishment?

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2016,10:07   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 21 2016,09:34)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 21 2016,06:50)
I think that's too simplistic a view.
From
?????????????????????

Nice find, but your link to it crashed.

The problem with my operational definition is it needs an explanation of the underlying cell (respiration?) cycle that in neural systems leads to a reduction in external awareness, a sleep state. Sleep can be interrupted by waking them, which makes it a less than total loss of consciousness.

No, that's not what an operational definition is.  (It's a theoretical definition, which is nice and important, but that's not an operational definition.)  As you have been repeatedly unable to figure this out for yourself, an operational definition explains what to measure and how to measure it (measuring tools and methods, often including units).  It is how you identify your variables, and how to measure them.  It may contain enough of a regular definition to make it clear what you are measuring, but that's not required.  Most fundamentally (and also the point at which you ALWAYS fail), it's how you demonstrate that something exists.  It turns the abstract concrete. If you can't explain how to measure something, then self-evidently you don't know what you are talking about.

That's your problem in spades.

   
Quote
An operational definition is a result of the process of operationalization and is used to define something (e.g. a variable, term, or object) in terms of a process (or set of validation tests) needed to determine its existence, duration, and quantity.


From http://www.indiana.edu/~p10134....rat.htm :
 
Quote
Mental processes can not be observed directly, because all psychological concepts and labels, like learning, memory, motivation, personality, etc, are inside your mind/brain. Therefore, to study and measure them you need to measure something that reflects these processes. These "stand-ins" for mental processes are called operational definitions.

Operational definitions define concepts and labels by the way they are measured. For example, an operational definition of weight could be: how much a spring stretches when you hang something from it, or how many pennies it takes to balance the weight of something. All psychological concepts and labels, like learning, memory, motivation, personality, etc, are theoretical concepts, which cannot be measured directly.

For example, the operational definition of temperate is how much a column or mercury or red colored alcohol expands in a thin tube put in the thing whose temperature you want to measure. In 1714 Gabriel Fahrenheit defined 0 as the temperature at which a concentrated mixture of salt and water freezes and +96 as the temperature of the human body. In 1741 Anders Celsius defined 0 degrees as the freezing point of pure water and +100 degrees as the boiling point of of pure water at standard ("sea level") pressure, the scale that most of the world outside the US uses.

In contrast, a theoretical definition is based on a theory. When the theory of heat as atomic motion was developed, a theoretically based scale, called the Kelvin scale, was created. The Kelvin scale's 0 degrees is the temperature at which all atomic motion (theoretically) stops. Keeping the step size created by the Celsius scale, the freezing point of water is 273 degrees Kelvin and the boiling point of water is 373 degrees Kelvin. Physics and chemistry have powerful, well-developed theories, so (most) measurement is done using theoretically based scales. Psychology is much less fortunate, and has only a few theoretically based scales.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2016,11:11   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 22 2016,11:07)
...  Most fundamentally (and also the point at which you ALWAYS fail), it's how you demonstrate that something exists.  It turns the abstract concrete. If you can't explain how to measure something, then self-evidently you don't know what you are talking about.

...

Well said.

As I noted above Gary, it's not enough to provide an abstraction that captures just any old concrete item.
You have to be able to capture all, or very nearly all, of the concretes that properly fall under the abstraction.  
You must also reject all, or very very nearly all, concretes that do not properly all under the abstraction.

Your 'circuit diagram' pseudo-model fails (spectacularly) at this because it both captures things that do not fall under the concept and also fails to capture things that clearly do fall under the concept.

People have been pointing this sort of thing out to you for nigh unto 10 years now.  It takes a very special form of stupid to barge ahead and disregard these obvious flaws.
It takes a very special form of arrogance to assert that those who continue to point out the flaws you're ignoring are "just trolling".

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2016,23:33   

Duty called at the reddit forum. This must-see three part series already got a thumb's up, from the person who most needed it:

PBS Nova - Making North America (2015) 720p Part 1 Origins
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fAZ6K-WlUk

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2016,23:45   

And just when I thought it could not get any better a UNI the Swarm Intelligence showed up to answer questions. It's still working on this one, but I can understand why it would not be an easy one:  

www.reddit.com/comments/4z13tb/hello_my_name_is_unu_i_am_a_swarm_intelligence/d6suxip

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2016,00:10   

Disregard the UNU. I went to their site, there is no way a useful answer would come from that thing.

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

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2016,02:22   

On Radio 4 from the BBC there is a panel game called ' Just a Minute' in which panellists have to talk for one minute on a subject without deviation, hesitation or repetition.

Quote
Disregard the UNU. I went to their site, there is no way a useful answer would come from that thing.


Gaulin would not last a second.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2016,06:36   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2016,00:45)
And just when I thought ...

Oh, would that you would.  Or could.

Nice attempt to distract from your latest dismal failures.
Here's another one for you to ignore.
The phenomena that fall under the broad heading of 'focused attention' are entirely inexplicable on your "theory".  As with so many other features of the universe, they are not only inexplicable on your notions, they are forbidden.
Sensory addressed memory simply cannot account for the ability to pick a single conversation out of a flood of simultaneous conversations.  Yet somehow we have no really problem listening to the people we care to hear, even if they are neither the loudest nor most proximate, when we are at a noisy party.
How is this sort of discrimination managed?  It's not motor control.  It's a direct proof that the simple-minded assertion of a direct route from 'sensation' to 'memory' is false in every meaningful respect.

What shiny new distraction will you present next?

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2016,06:38   

To his credit, Gary defends paleontology over at the Reddit Creationist forum at his link.
https://www.reddit.com/r....or....ort=old

However, Javidan of the West asks for "theories or indications of the truth of creation that withstand (or have withstood) criticism", and Gary responds by giving links to all his nonsense.  Gary, your stuff is not a theory: among other things, it has zero acceptance.  Also, your nonsense has not "withstood criticism" - you have yet to respond adequately to even one bit of the critiques that have been raised on this thread.

From Javidan of the West in the opening post:

 
Quote
I'm compiling a book out of different chapters that will contain the answers to pretty much any question, including those of (and about) Mormons, JW's and Muslims.

Now here's my problem. I want to dedicate a part of it to evolution, and I feel like I should explain why. My goal is not to discredit evolution, but to make the average person realize that behind all this talk of an infallible theory of truth, that there is actually a lot of room for doubt. At the same time, I'd want to provide incentive to believe in creation, but I do not necessarily need to prove it's truth.

Some of you might have noticed that most Christians nowadays seem to believe that Genesis is almost entirely supposed to be interpreted figuratively (examples: flood never happened, creation never happened, fall never happened, but they tell a story that applies to us), which I believe is the beginning of the downfall of Christianity.

What I need are:

   theories or indications of the truth of creation that withstand (or have withstood) criticism.

   Evolutionary conclusions that are better explained with creationism.

   Findings that evolutionists try to sweep under the rug, or findngs that they conveniently overlook.

   Sources that quickly allow me to grasp the concepts of creation and evolution, and their fundamental differences. Perhaps even the fields in which one theory is stronger than the other. These are hard to find because they often delve deeply into the scientific aspects, with the inclusion of 'sciency' words, which is what I'm very much trying to avoid in my book, as I want to provide understandable information.

[and in a later post...]

I'll manage to somehow make this easy to understand once I myself completely understand it.


Talk about starting with your desired conclusions!  Gary, can you see the weaknesses of that approach when someone else does it?

Also interesting: a post there by Salvador Cordova, who claims to be writing a book with Sanford and Marks ("hope to have 0th edition out by Christmas. We'll see. I've have the material for the remaining 3/4 somewhat written, but it strewn all over the internet and need reworking of the language to make it clear to an 8-year-old.")  !!!!!!

 
Quote
You should reference then my upcoming book co-authored with John Sanford (Geneticist), Robert Marks (computer scientist, expert in evolutionary informatics), Joe Deweee (Pharmaceutical Biologists), possible a couple more. :-)

The problem with what you are asking is that to make a convincing case, one needs to go into technical details. How comfortable would you be talking about nucleosomes, spliceosome, sliceosomal introns, hitsones, chromatin remodelers to criticize eukaryote evolution from prokaryotes?

Here is an example of on such paper. See for yourself the paucity of credible refutations:

https://www.reddit.com/r....?......?....?

Probably a better approach is to simply list questions an undergrad can ask about evolution which I'm confident his professors can't answer like, "does the direct the common ancestor of an elephant and a bird exist in the fossil record? How about the direct unequivocal common ancestor of a giraffe and a cabbage plant? Describe the evolution of insulin regulated metabolisms in vertebrates, how did the intermediate forms avoid death?" You can lay that out in about 3 pages. Here is what I did for a college biology student: https://www.reddit.com/r....?......?....?

So try that. It will take some reworking.

But here is my favorite:

   In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to [the pseudo science of] phrenology than to physics. -- World famous evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne


Notes: Salvador is still relying on slinging jargon for obfuscation/intimidation, both in his own right, and indirectly in the literature that he now uses as the basis of his argument ( https://answersingenesis.org/biology....eukarya ).  He also still loves quote-mines.  He still claims confirmation from lack of sufficient response (despite a couple of perfectly good responses in an out-of-the-way thread: no one would expect a transition to be possible between a modern prokaryote and a modern eukaryote; the creationist article does not discuss endosymbiosis).  Overall, pitiful.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2016,06:52   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 23 2016,06:38)
Talk about starting with your desired conclusions!  Gary, can you see the weaknesses of that approach when someone else does it?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Even you start off with conclusions.

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

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2016,06:58   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2016,07:52)
...
I have no idea what you're talking about.
...

That's not exactly new news.
It is perhaps the one statement you can and should always utter, as it is always true.

You really don't know what a conclusion is, do you?

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2016,07:29   

AAAS definition of a theory
Quote
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.


Wikipedia:  
Quote
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments.  Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.  It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" .......  as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from, and in contrast to, the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".  As used in everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" implies that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis; such a usage is the opposite of the word 'theory' in science


Quote
A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

................

An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).



Note that your pile of nonsense is not substantiated by anything, does not offer new explanations, is not generally accepted, and is neither reliable nor rigorous.

Useful stuff from http://www.cios.org/readboo....h02.pdf

Quote
Concepts must also be objectively observed. This requires that we create operational definitions, which translate the verbal concepts into corresponding variables which can be measured.


Quote
A scientific concept really consists of three parts: a label, a theoretical definition, and an operational definition. ....... Concept Labels.  One of the requirements of a theory is that it be in a form which can be communicated to any interested person in an unambiguous fashion, so that it may be tested and evaluated by others


Quote
The theoretical definition specifies the verbal meaning which is attached to the concept label.  We need this explanation because the scientific method requires that others understand our theory and be able to criticize and reproduce our observations.  If we fail to specify the meaning represented by a particular concept label, we leave room for misunderstanding.  


Quote
the rules of science demand that this concept be capable of being unambiguously and objectively observed by anyone. This means that we must create another type of definition, called an operational definition. An operational definition translates the verbal meaning provided by the theoretical definition into a prescription for measurement. Although they may be expressed verbally, operational definitions are fundamentally statements that describe measurement and mathematical operations.  An operational definition adds three things to the theoretical definition. An operational definition describes the unit of measurement ........

An operational definition specifies the level of measurement .......

An operational definition provides a mathematical or logical statement that clearly states how measurements are to be made and combined to create a single value for the abstract concept. ......

The operational definition must be very closely associated with the theoretical definition.  It must state clearly how observations will be made so they will reflect as fully as possible the meaning associated with the verbal concept or construct. The operational definition must tell us how to observe and quantify the concept in the “real world”. This connection between theoretical and operational definitions is quite critical. This connection establishes the validity of the measurement. The amount of validity in measurement is proportional to the extent to which we actually measure what we intend to measure, that is, the degree to which the operational  definition and the theoretical definition correspond.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2016,07:34   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2016,06:52)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 23 2016,06:38)
Talk about starting with your desired conclusions!  Gary, can you see the weaknesses of that approach when someone else does it?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Even you start off with conclusions.

The guy is intending to write a book.  He already knows what he wants the book to say, and just needs ALL the evidence that he should have needed to reach the conclusions that he has already reached.

   
Quote
What I need are:
  Theories or indications of the truth of creation that withstand (or have withstood) criticism.
  Evolutionary conclusions that are better explained with creationism.
  Findings that evolutionists try to sweep under the rug, or findings that they conveniently overlook.
  Sources that quickly allow me to grasp the concepts of creation and evolution, and their fundamental differences. Perhaps even the fields in which one theory is stronger than the other. These are hard to find because they often delve deeply into the scientific aspects.......

He has none of that.  He should have had all of that before he arrived at his conclusions.

   
Quote
Even you start off with conclusions.

Show me where I have pursued the truth by starting with my desired conclusions.

In contrast, I showed you how YOU do that all the time, back on August 14.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2016,15:58   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2016,06:52)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 23 2016,06:38)
Talk about starting with your desired conclusions!  Gary, can you see the weaknesses of that approach when someone else does it?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Even you start off with conclusions.

Oh the humanity!

Gary, this is why you don't understand science.

--------------
"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) < ... 568 569 570 571 572 [573] 574 575 576 577 578 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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