RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 571 572 573 574 575 [576] 577 578 579 580 581 ... >   
  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: Sep. 01 2016,06:38   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 01 2016,00:39)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 31 2016,22:43)
Yes, you just have variables, which are basically just labels, not careful and ground-truthed simulations of biochemical processes that develop from first principles.

If Erwin Schrödinger or other great math/logic modeler were here right now then you would be in big big trouble, for saying that.

Operational definitions are not a substitute for being able to make it happen on paper, then later on a computer screen. All else is just talk...

You are neither a mathematician, logician, nor modeler.
You don't even understand the scope and limits of models.

Being able to 'make it happen on paper, then later on a computer screen' is the arena in which screen-writers work.
Snow White quite superbly models the interaction of poisoned apples, kidnapped princesses, and mining dwarves.
It tells us nothing about the pharmacology of toxicity, the structures of royalty, nor mining technology.

Screen writers (and authors of computer games) are unencumbered by the natural world in much the same way that you are unencumbered by intelligence of any sort.
Or a decent humility.  You so very very much to be humble about.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2016,07:57   

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 01 2016,05:52)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 31 2016,23:39)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 31 2016,22:43)
Yes, you just have variables, which are basically just labels, not careful and ground-truthed simulations of biochemical processes that develop from first principles.

If Erwin Schrödinger or other great math/logic modeler were here right now then you would be in big big trouble, for saying that.

Operational definitions are not a substitute for being able to make it happen on paper, then later on a computer screen. All else is just talk...


You're no Schrodinger.

Operational and theoretical definitions are a prerequisite for doing anything useful.

Modellers have to demonstrate that their algorithms are appropriate and that their math matches reality, otherwise it's no better that Snowflakes = Snowflakes + 1.  You haven't done that.

It still sounds like you are saying that Albert Einstein did not need to know that E=MC^2.

I have to get to my day job. Then I have to review the results of a long test of the ID Lab-6 that will meanwhile be running on the computer.

--------------
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: Sep. 01 2016,08:15   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 01 2016,08:57)
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 01 2016,05:52)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 31 2016,23:39)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 31 2016,22:43)
Yes, you just have variables, which are basically just labels, not careful and ground-truthed simulations of biochemical processes that develop from first principles.

If Erwin Schrödinger or other great math/logic modeler were here right now then you would be in big big trouble, for saying that.

Operational definitions are not a substitute for being able to make it happen on paper, then later on a computer screen. All else is just talk...


You're no Schrodinger.

Operational and theoretical definitions are a prerequisite for doing anything useful.

Modellers have to demonstrate that their algorithms are appropriate and that their math matches reality, otherwise it's no better that Snowflakes = Snowflakes + 1.  You haven't done that.

It still sounds like you are saying that Albert Einstein did not need to know that E=MC^2.

I have to get to my day job. Then I have to review the results of a long test of the ID Lab-6 that will meanwhile be running on the computer.

In an absolutely critical sense of the phrase, Einstein indeed did not need to know that E=MC^2.
If he knew it, how could he discover it?  How could he work out the math from prior principles and discoveries of physics?  How could he justify the truth of the claim to others if he did not understand how it was derived from physical phenomena and prior work?
You're an idiot.

But, of course, you don't even have an equation.  Nor do you have an algorithm.  Nor do you have the faintest clue of what phenomenon or phenomena you are working to 'explain'.
What you've produced is no more an explanation of 'intelligence', no matter how conceived, than Disney's Fantasia is an explanation of how to compose music.

"Tests" of your absurd "ID Lab" will reveal nothing other than whether the code runs or not.  The "ID Lab" has no relation to anything in reality, even if it is capable of producing 'results' that appear to match phenomena found in reality.  Remember?  We've been over this countless times.  Map/territory, model/reality.  Etc.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2016,17:17   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 01 2016,07:57)
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 01 2016,05:52)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 31 2016,23:39)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 31 2016,22:43)
Yes, you just have variables, which are basically just labels, not careful and ground-truthed simulations of biochemical processes that develop from first principles.

If Erwin Schrödinger or other great math/logic modeler were here right now then you would be in big big trouble, for saying that.

Operational definitions are not a substitute for being able to make it happen on paper, then later on a computer screen. All else is just talk...


You're no Schrodinger.

Operational and theoretical definitions are a prerequisite for doing anything useful.

Modellers have to demonstrate that their algorithms are appropriate and that their math matches reality, otherwise it's no better that Snowflakes = Snowflakes + 1.  You haven't done that.

It still sounds like you are saying that Albert Einstein did not need to know that E=MC^2.

I have to get to my day job. Then I have to review the results of a long test of the ID Lab-6 that will meanwhile be running on the computer.

Quote
It still sounds like you are saying that Albert Einstein did not need to know that E=MC^2.
 I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Einstein intuited and then proved that e=mc^2, but he didn't "know it" until he finished his work.  

He combined flashes of intuition with careful controlled analysis.  He was very concerned with thinking accurately about things and matching his ideas to reality, although at times he did this via brilliant thought experiments.  He relied on other people's lab work, and he specialized in thinking about and resolving apparent contradictions.  He used math: he figured that nature should follow the simplest math available.  This initially served him very well, but it turned out to be the wrong strategy for him once he turned 40.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2016,17:29   

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 01 2016,17:17)
He combined flashes of intuition with careful controlled analysis.

Well I'm also busy combining flashes of intuition with careful controlled analysis.

Back to work!

--------------
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: Sep. 01 2016,18:04   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 01 2016,18:29)
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 01 2016,17:17)
He combined flashes of intuition with careful controlled analysis.

Well I'm also busy combining flashes of intuition with careful controlled analysis.

Back to work!

Citation needed.

There are zero signs of careful or controlled analysis in your output.

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2016,18:17   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 01 2016,17:29)
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 01 2016,17:17)
He combined flashes of intuition with careful controlled analysis.

Well I'm also busy combining flashes of intuition with careful controlled analysis.

Back to work!

Well that tanks your bug then, doesn't it?

If true.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2016,18:50   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 01 2016,17:29)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 01 2016,17:17)
He combined flashes of intuition with careful controlled analysis.

Well I'm also busy combining flashes of intuition with careful controlled analysis.

Back to work!

However, his were correct. And intuitive.  And his analyses were careful and controlled.

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2016,12:19   

Quote
Well I'm also busy combining flashes of intuition with careful controlled analysis.


He certainly puts the 'dip' in 'stick'!  :)  :)  :)  

Gadzooks whatta hoot!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2016,02:53   

Quote
Well I'm also busy combining flashes of intuition with careful controlled analysis.

Back to work!


Unfortunately for you, Gaulin, Einstein's intuitions were based on his knowledge of the science involved. Your "intuitions" are based on a twisted interpretation of pseudoscience from the DI.

Throw away your all your assertions and you have nothing to add to cognitive science in your not-a-theory. You do have a poor imitation of Pacman, I will concede that point. However that is also useless to explain what you, alone, consider as 'intelligence'.

A hippocampal insect, really? I suggest you look up how many neurons make up what can be called an insect's brain (Hint; not many). Then try and fit in a hippocampus.

Your God delusion has fried your brain, Gaulin.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2016,07:25   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Sep. 03 2016,02:53)
         
Quote
Well I'm also busy combining flashes of intuition with careful controlled analysis.

Back to work!


Unfortunately for you, Gaulin, Einstein's intuitions were based on his knowledge of the science involved. Your "intuitions" are based on a twisted interpretation of pseudoscience from the DI.

Throw away your all your assertions and you have nothing to add to cognitive science in your not-a-theory. You do have a poor imitation of Pacman, I will concede that point. However that is also useless to explain what you, alone, consider as 'intelligence'.

A hippocampal insect, really? I suggest you look up how many neurons make up what can be called an insect's brain (Hint; not many). Then try and fit in a hippocampus.

Your God delusion has fried your brain, Gaulin.

Insect "brains" (specifically, the supraesophageal ganglion) don't have hippocampi (so, as has long been noted in this thread, Gaulin is completely out to lunch in his specific claims - he's modelling something that does not exist!).

Nonetheless, although insect brains are very small, they do have "mushroom bodies" (which assess sensory inputs, especially olfactory information processed and passed on by the antenna lobes).  I've mentioned these before, but didn't go into much detail, in the so-far fulfilled hope that Gary would never get round to correcting the funniest part of his arguments.   The mushroom bodies are part of the insect brain that are most similar to hippocampi in vertebrates (although the similarities are limited).  Mushroom bodies play a strong role in long-term and short-term memory and behavioral complexity. Honeybees have around 340,000 neurons in their "mushroom bodies" (out of about 1 million neurons total, compared to 80 billion neurons for us), which (nonstandardly for insects) include processing of visual signals.

It is especially fascinating that many insects do not change some behaviors much after decapitation.  Decapitated horseflies live, run, and copulate while headless; fruit flies do all that and live several days after being decapitated (although headless female fruit flies basically only cooperate in mating when they get raped, since beheaded females don't initiate courting rituals). The male praying mantis, famously, only starts mating after being beheaded. Long-term memory in trained cockroaches does not depend on their retaining their heads.  Mating and moving are controlled by the ventral nerve cord, which is not in the head.

People who work on animal intelligence often measure it by how many different behaviors the organism can control (which is a very cool operational definition that leads to more or less reproducible evaluations).  Most insects are between 15 and 59 (with bees at the top score, correlating mostly with degrees of social interactions): by comparison, dolphins rank at 123.  Standardized for brain size, bees are pretty damn smart.

Insects are very variable, but they do not work very much like his model.  A lot of insect behavior is hard-wired, instinctive, but they can also do amazing things.  Ants navigate by counting steps and recognizing landscape features.  Damselflies can learn to fly through very complex mazes, but (or and?) if you place a bright light underneath them they automatically switch to flying upside down.  Gary of course is completely ignorant about everything related to insects, despite the fact that his model is supposed to be an insect ("bug").

Gary's model is nonsense for so many reasons, but one of the funniest aspects of all of this is that he bases ALL of his arguments on a model of something that doesn't even exist (hippocampi in insects).  Talk about a lack of ground-truthing!

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2016,16:54   

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 03 2016,07:25)
People who work on animal intelligence often measure it by how many different behaviors the organism can control (which is a very cool operational definition that leads to more or less reproducible evaluations).  Most insects are between 15 and 59 (with bees at the top score, correlating mostly with degrees of social interactions): by comparison, dolphins rank at 123.  Standardized for brain size, bees are pretty damn smart.

That's nice, but I work with far more than "animal intelligence".

I'm not interested in narrow definitions that cannot explain how an intelligent system works. That would be a step backwards.

--------------
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: Sep. 03 2016,17:07   

Quote
That's nice, but I work with far more than "animal intelligence".


No, Gaulin you work with no intelligence at all. (See how you have to use words in the correct context to make sense).

Quote
I'm not interested in narrow definitions that cannot explain how an intelligent system works. That would be a step backwards.


The first time you even begin to start to try and use definitions will be the time you have come close to sciencing.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2016,17:11   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 03 2016,16:54)
     
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 03 2016,07:25)
People who work on animal intelligence often measure it by how many different behaviors the organism can control (which is a very cool operational definition that leads to more or less reproducible evaluations).  Most insects are between 15 and 59 (with bees at the top score, correlating mostly with degrees of social interactions): by comparison, dolphins rank at 123.  Standardized for brain size, bees are pretty damn smart.

That's nice, but I work with far more than "animal intelligence".

I'm not interested in narrow definitions that cannot explain how an intelligent system works. That would be a step backwards.

You work with far less than animal intelligence.

You do not have an operational definition that works for human intelligence, let alone any other kind.  You do not have a valid theoretical definition for intelligence that justifies expansion of the concept beyond traditional limits, nor any evidence that doing so is valid, useful, or meaningful.  You have yet to demonstrate that (for example) "molecular intelligence" actually exists, so you are a long, long way from having a method to quantify it, to measure it, so that we can begin to discuss it.  

   
Quote
I'm not interested in narrow definitions that cannot explain how an intelligent system works. That would be a step backwards.
 That's not really how it works.  I don't care if your definition is broad or narrow, just as long as you have one that is logically justifiable, which you do not.  It is not required of a definition to explain how something works. (That's really more the job of the theory that is developed by doing the work that becomes possible once you have a satisfactory working definition, although later definitions will likely include explanations based on established theories - look up definitions of plate tectonics for examples of the latter sort of definition).  The first and most important job of a definition is to say what something is, in a useful and justifiable way, so that we can all get on the same page in order to discuss it and to investigate it.  You have not done this, so all your stuff is mere drivel.

Idiot: (from Wikipedia): "An idiot, dolt, dullard or (archaically) mome is a person perceived to be lacking intelligence, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. Along with the similar terms moron, imbecile, and cretin, the word archaically referred to the intellectually disabled, but have all since gained specialized meanings in modern times. An idiot is said to be idiotic, and to suffer from idiocy. A dunce is an idiot who is specifically incapable of learning. An idiot differs from a fool (who is unwise) and an ignoramus (who is uneducated/ignorant), neither of which refers to someone with low intelligence. In modern English usage, the terms "idiot" and "idiocy" describe an extreme folly or stupidity, and its symptoms (foolish or stupid utterance or deed). In psychology, it is a historical term for the state or condition now called profound intellectual disability [...... Individuals with the lowest mental age level (less than three years) were identified as idiots; imbeciles had a mental age of three to seven years, and morons had a mental age of seven to ten years]"


You are still screwing around modelling something that does not exist (hippocampi in insects), using meaningless variables rather than generating anything significant from first principles.  You have yet to show that you have anything of interest or value, and all indications so far are that you don't.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2016,17:38   

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 03 2016,17:11)
You are still screwing around modelling something that does not exist (hippocampi in insects), using meaningless variables rather than generating anything significant from first principles.  You have yet to show that you have anything of interest or value, and all indications so far are that you don't.

As I already explained to you: the operative phrase is "Navigation Network" and IN HUMANS involves what is called "hippocampi".

Reread this, to yourself:

Idiot: (from Wikipedia): "An idiot, dolt, dullard or (archaically) mome is a person perceived to be lacking intelligence, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. Along with the similar terms moron, imbecile, and cretin, the word archaically referred to the intellectually disabled, but have all since gained specialized meanings in modern times. An idiot is said to be idiotic, and to suffer from idiocy. A dunce is an idiot who is specifically incapable of learning. An idiot differs from a fool (who is unwise) and an ignoramus (who is uneducated/ignorant), neither of which refers to someone with low intelligence. In modern English usage, the terms "idiot" and "idiocy" describe an extreme folly or stupidity, and its symptoms (foolish or stupid utterance or deed). In psychology, it is a historical term for the state or condition now called profound intellectual disability [...... Individuals with the lowest mental age level (less than three years) were identified as idiots; imbeciles had a mental age of three to seven years, and morons had a mental age of seven to ten years]"

--------------
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: Sep. 03 2016,17:52   

Are you off your meds again?

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2016,18:03   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 03 2016,17:38)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 03 2016,17:11)
You are still screwing around modelling something that does not exist (hippocampi in insects), using meaningless variables rather than generating anything significant from first principles.  You have yet to show that you have anything of interest or value, and all indications so far are that you don't.

As I already explained to you: the operative phrase is "Navigation Network" and IN HUMANS involves what is called "hippocampi".

You have described your program as modelling a bug, specifically hippocampi in bugs.  You have yet to demonstrate that bugs navigate in this manner, and bugs do not have hippocampi. You use your model to draw conclusions about natural selection, the origin of intelligence, the Cambrian explosion, ubiquitous parental love and devotion (as supposedly typified in crocodilians and salmon, two groups with notably low levels of parental care), and all manner of other stuff.  Your definition of intelligence clearly does not apply to humans.  You have insisted all along that your ideas are not restricted to human intelligence.  It's a little late to shift the goal posts to hippocampi "in HUMANS".  Bugs do not seem to navigate the way you propose.  There may be some useful comparisons to be made, but you'd need some actual ground-truthing because you don't know yet what actually happens.

According to my observations, you are perceived across the internet to be lacking intelligence, to be acting in a self-defeating and significantly counterproductive way. You are clearly not good at learning from suggestions and past failures. You are clearly uneducated with respect to the aspects of biology that you are attempting to criticize, and your not-a-theory is to science as http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites......_45.png is to useful buildings, except that the latter is charming and fun.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2016,18:44   

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 03 2016,18:03)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 03 2016,17:38)
     
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 03 2016,17:11)
You are still screwing around modelling something that does not exist (hippocampi in insects), using meaningless variables rather than generating anything significant from first principles.  You have yet to show that you have anything of interest or value, and all indications so far are that you don't.

As I already explained to you: the operative phrase is "Navigation Network" and IN HUMANS involves what is called "hippocampi".

You have described your program as modelling a bug.  Your definition of intelligence clearly does not apply to humans.  You have insisted all along that your ideas are not restricted to human intelligence.  It's a little late to shift the goal posts to hippocampi "in HUMANS".  Bugs do not seem to navigate the way you propose.  There may be some useful comparisons to be made, but you'd need some actual ground-truthing because you don't know yet what actually happens.

According to my observations, you are perceived across the internet to be lacking intelligence, to be acting in a self-defeating and significantly counterproductive way. You are clearly not good at learning from suggestions and past failures. You are clearly uneducated with respect to the aspects of biology that you are attempting to criticize, and your not-a-theory is to science as http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites......_45.png is to useful buildings, except that the latter is charming and fun.

Then you should have no problem explaining why there should be a ratio of around 60% "concordant pairs".


journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000403

Show us how you hand-wave that all away.

--------------
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: Sep. 03 2016,21:13   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 03 2016,18:44)
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 03 2016,18:03)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 03 2016,17:38)
       
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 03 2016,17:11)
You are still screwing around modelling something that does not exist (hippocampi in insects), using meaningless variables rather than generating anything significant from first principles.  You have yet to show that you have anything of interest or value, and all indications so far are that you don't.

As I already explained to you: the operative phrase is "Navigation Network" and IN HUMANS involves what is called "hippocampi".

You have described your program as modelling a bug.  Your definition of intelligence clearly does not apply to humans.  You have insisted all along that your ideas are not restricted to human intelligence.  It's a little late to shift the goal posts to hippocampi "in HUMANS".  Bugs do not seem to navigate the way you propose.  There may be some useful comparisons to be made, but you'd need some actual ground-truthing because you don't know yet what actually happens.

According to my observations, you are perceived across the internet to be lacking intelligence, to be acting in a self-defeating and significantly counterproductive way. You are clearly not good at learning from suggestions and past failures. You are clearly uneducated with respect to the aspects of biology that you are attempting to criticize, and your not-a-theory is to science as http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites......_45.png is to useful buildings, except that the latter is charming and fun.

Then you should have no problem explaining why there should be a ratio of around 60% "concordant pairs".


journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000403

Show us how you hand-wave that all away.

Why should I want to "hand-wave that away"?

Also, I failed to see where they found hippocampi in insects.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2016,21:30   

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 03 2016,21:13)
Why should I want to "hand-wave that away"?

It's obviously easier for you to just totally ignore what I asked for.

I need models that actually work, not your sciency sounding excuses for not having any.

--------------
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: Sep. 03 2016,22:27   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 03 2016,21:30)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 03 2016,21:13)
Why should I want to "hand-wave that away"?

It's obviously easier for you to just totally ignore what I asked for.

I need models that actually work, not your sciency sounding excuses for not having any.

Says the person who has ignored nearly everything raised by others for the whole thread.  

Have you got any evidence yet of baby crocodilians scurrying into their mothers' mouths when danger threatens?  Have you found any insects with hippocampi?

Yes, you really, really, really do need some models that work.  Too bad yours doesn't do the job.

As to which of us is falsely "science-y sounding", note that I've been presenting documented and verified evidence, while you've been specializing in unsupported assertions and bluster.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2016,23:28   

Ironically the same is now happening at the Reddit Creation and Intelligent Design forum. In both cases unspecific generalizations that leave things up to the reader's imagination are being used as excuses for not having a working scientific model and theory to explain how "intelligent behavior" and "intelligent cause" works. Each side has arguing points they are loyal to, and raising the bar trips them both up.

--------------
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: Sep. 04 2016,07:11   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2016,00:28)
Ironically the same is now happening at the Reddit Creation and Intelligent Design forum. In both cases unspecific generalizations that leave things up to the reader's imagination are being used as excuses for not having a working scientific model and theory to explain how "intelligent behavior" and "intelligent cause" works. Each side has arguing points they are loyal to, and raising the bar trips them both up.

It sucks when people steal your schtick, right?  There's nothing ironic about it.

I mean after all, your nonsense is nothing but unspecific generalizations leaving things up to the reader's imagination.
You have no 'scientific model' for you are not modeling anything real.  Your unspecific generalizations, as given, are strictly false.  But they are truly unspecific and truly unwarranted generalizations from facts never given, but largely fantasized.

You are unable to explain the simplest phenomena using your "theory" other than by pulling in details that are nowhere stated or implied in your own work.

Specific case in point -- your link between sensation and memory, presumably a system wherein there is a direct link from sensation to memory wherein sensation serves as the addressing function and, depending on (unspecified yet hugely significant details) the content of the sensation is stored or else is read out.
That this over-simplistic generalization is false is readily determined simply in the attentive practice of day to day life.

We do not remember everything we sense.  strike one
We do not notice that certain sensations recur, nor does this recurrence have any impact or lead to any change whatsoever for the vast number of 'sensations' it must be assumed we all experience.  strike two
We focus our attention on the various incoming 'sensation's (hypothesized entities for which no solid grounding yet exists) to select (an operation not available in your system) the particular 'sensations' to which we attend.  Very specific example:  hearing and remembering a particular conversational exchange happening in a crowded party amongst many other conversations and other, non-conversational noise 'sensations'.  The conversation we attend to is not the loudest nor in any other way discernible from all the other 'sensations' impinging on the body.  Not even from all the other specifically auditory 'sensations'.  
Yet this happens routinely.  It is both inexplicable by your "theory" and, to all appearances, forbidden by it.  strike three

You need to crank your pretentiousness down by several orders of magnitude, stop pretending you have done what you so clearly have not, stop taking umbrage at others daring to question, challenge, or worst of all ignore your output, and, quite simply, do the work.
Which in your case means figuring out just what the work actually is.  It is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.  Meaning is starkly absent from your output.  You use language the way a crow or parrot would, with, at best, attention to the form, but never the meaning.

You need to abandon the ludicrous mess you've been polishing for the last decade and likely more, as it is hopeless as it stands.  Filled with vague generalizations, largely fantasies with no relation to or bearing on the real world, incoherent, illogical, and utterly incapable of explaining a single phenomenon -- at least, not without bringing in things left to the reader's imagination.
You have nothing but a poor excuse for a failed attempt at crafting a hypothesis, let alone a theory.
As you've been told everywhere you've floundered around the web for the last decade.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2016,07:23   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 03 2016,23:28)
Ironically the same is now happening at the Reddit Creation and Intelligent Design forum. In both cases unspecific generalizations that leave things up to the reader's imagination are being used as excuses for not having a working scientific model and theory to explain how "intelligent behavior" and "intelligent cause" works. Each side has arguing points they are loyal to, and raising the bar trips them both up.

http://cdn.lifebuzz.com/images....000.jpg

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2016,17:01   

Snowball ™ - Another One Bites The Dust
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJOZp2ZftCw

--------------
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: Sep. 07 2016,01:18   

Quote
Snowball ™ - Another One Bites The Dust
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJOZp2ZftCw


Another irrelevant video to add to your irrelevant not-a-theory, Gaulin.

What next? Kittens?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2016,06:56   

The ID Lab is all set to make a video. And has dance step type cellular memory.  More later..

--------------
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: Sep. 07 2016,07:08   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 07 2016,07:56)
The ID Lab is all set to make a video. And has dance step type cellular memory.  More later..

I'm not sure which is greater -- the many-layered depth of or the amount of conceptual confusion embedded in the phrase "dance step type cellular memory."

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2016,10:47   

Quote
The ID Lab is all set to make a video.


Kittens! I bet it's about kittens. Dancing kittens.

Quote
And has dance step type cellular memory.  More later..


The only cell you need, Gaulin, is a padded one.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2016,10:57   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Sep. 07 2016,08:47)
The only cell you need, Gaulin, is a padded one.

He provides his own, in his basement.  If he wasn't busy "working" on his "theory,"  he'd probably be hurting himself and others.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

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

Pages: (622) < ... 571 572 573 574 575 [576] 577 578 579 580 581 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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