RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (608) < ... 593 594 595 596 597 [598] 599 600 601 602 603 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Henry J



Posts: 4788
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2017,11:43   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Sep. 05 2017,07:05)
Quote
My priorities are with the pioneering of an emerging science, where a cognitive model is required for you to even be taken seriously.


The only trouble here is that all the other pioneers are heading West and you are heading East into the ocean.

Watch out for Irma.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1503
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2017,16:59   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 05 2017,11:43)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Sep. 05 2017,07:05)
Quote
My priorities are with the pioneering of an emerging science, where a cognitive model is required for you to even be taken seriously.


The only trouble here is that all the other pioneers are heading West and you are heading East into the ocean.

Watch out for Irma.

Running Gary's ideas through a hurricane could only improve them.

--------------
"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"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin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: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2017,17:02   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 04 2017,22:09)
Did this guy once work in a movie theater?

More popcorn?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL2TYoBYsnY

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

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2592
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2017,17:25   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Sep. 05 2017,06:05)
Quote
My priorities are with the pioneering of an emerging science, where a cognitive model is required for you to even be taken seriously.


The only trouble here is that all the other pioneers are heading West and you are heading East into the ocean.

His ideas went south a long time ago.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2017,18:27   

Quote
Now the readers can see how impossible it can sometimes be to get armchair warriors like you to stick to the topic of how "intelligence" works. The goalposts keep changing to "selection" or something else.


Gary, YOU argue against natural selection in your incoherent ramblings you call a theory. In fact, it seems so central to your point that you quote this fact in your signature!  I just finished demonstrating that to you! (Not quite sure why you apparently tried to deny it in the first place, seeing how integral it is to your ill-defined notion. Anyway, it backfired big time.)



Quote
In my opinion that's where future "evolutionary science" must go, in order to explain all the things that "evolution by natural selection" was never even intended for.


You don't understand evolution. Like...demonstrably.

Quote
My priorities are with the pioneering of an emerging science, where a cognitive model is required for you to even be taken seriously.


If you actually wanted a scientific exchange about anything, you would seek peer review. But we have already been through this, and you have openly admitted to reject the very notion of peer review, because you would refuse to accept their expertise if and when they invariably reject you.
So, instead, you prefer to bother people on neurology subreddits who ignore you or tell you that you make no sense, or you waffle on with some other completely unqualified random people on the internet, and even then no one really seems to really address each other.

BUT: You are not really interested in a scientific debate, and let's be clear, no one takes you seriously. This delusion needs to stop.


Hi to everyone else, I really like your commentary, you are hilarious. (Well, so is Gary, but for very different reasons.)

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2017,21:40   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 05 2017,18:27)
Gary, YOU argue against natural selection in your incoherent ramblings you call a theory.

The phrase is useless to theory that has no "natural selection" variable in its model. A scientific theory for an entirely different phenomenon is not supposed to or should be expected to argue against the other. Therefore the only page you'll find it is on the page that explains why from that point on it's completely absent from the text, appears zero times.  

Quote
Preface/Premise

This scientific theory explains how “intelligent cause" works, as is required by the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design(1) which states:

“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.”

The logical framework of this theory does not have or need a “natural selection” variable. Intelligent living things "learn" (not select/selected) and can take a "guess” (not mutate) and in its lifetime physically “develop” (not evolve). A streamlined vocabulary eliminates subjective terminology and phrases like “evo-devo” that only Darwinian theory needs for it to connect to developmental Biology. The result is a more complete model of reality which is not only useful to scientists but also to computer programmers, artists, musicians, clergy, and anyone interested in knowing who and what we are, and where we came from.

Credit for this theory must also go to hundreds who as far back as 1980’s helped add to and strengthen the scientific concepts which led to novel theory that in time became all of this. Scientist or not, all who were a part of the way things went, as the theory moved from forum to forum on the internet, helped change science history by ultimately bringing to life the once thought to be scientifically impossible Theory of Intelligent Design.

Thank you!


My not needing the "natural selection" variable is not an argument against anything. It just shows that the model/theory I develop does in fact have its own unique set of variables, and all alone "can stand on its own scientific merit". We thus have nothing at all needing to be argued over, much more free time. We're going to dance, have some fun:

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/ok-its-a-dancing-robot-spider-moving-to-the-cuban-pete-song

--------------
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: 1772
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2017,07:09   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 05 2017,21:40)
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 05 2017,18:27)
Gary, YOU argue against natural selection in your incoherent ramblings you call a theory.

The phrase is useless to theory that has no "natural selection" variable in its model. A scientific theory for an entirely different phenomenon is not supposed to or should be expected to argue against the other. Therefore the only page you'll find it is on the page that explains why from that point on it's completely absent from the text, appears zero times.  

 
Quote
Preface/Premise

This scientific theory explains how “intelligent cause" works, as is required by the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design(1) which states:

“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.”

The logical framework of this theory does not have or need a “natural selection” variable. Intelligent living things "learn" (not select/selected) and can take a "guess” (not mutate) and in its lifetime physically “develop” (not evolve). A streamlined vocabulary eliminates subjective terminology and phrases like “evo-devo” that only Darwinian theory needs for it to connect to developmental Biology. The result is a more complete model of reality which is not only useful to scientists but also to computer programmers, artists, musicians, clergy, and anyone interested in knowing who and what we are, and where we came from.

Credit for this theory must also go to hundreds who as far back as 1980’s helped add to and strengthen the scientific concepts which led to novel theory that in time became all of this. Scientist or not, all who were a part of the way things went, as the theory moved from forum to forum on the internet, helped change science history by ultimately bringing to life the once thought to be scientifically impossible Theory of Intelligent Design.

Thank you!


My not needing the "natural selection" variable is not an argument against anything. It just shows that the model/theory I develop does in fact have its own unique set of variables, and all alone "can stand on its own scientific merit". We thus have nothing at all needing to be argued over, much more free time. We're going to dance, have some fun:

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/ok-its-a-dancing-robot-spider-moving-to-the-cuban-pete-song

Indeed, not everything has to be explained by evolution, but evolution also does not start and end with natural selection - other processes are also involved.

Quote
This scientific theory [1] explains [2] how “intelligent cause"[3] works, as is required by the premise [4] of the Theory of Intelligent Design [5] which states:

“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features  of the universe and of living things [6] are best explained by an intelligent cause [7], not an undirected process such as natural selection.” [8]

The logical framework of this theory does not have or need a “natural selection” variable. Intelligent living things "learn" (not select/selected) [9] and can take a "guess” (not mutate) [10] and in its lifetime physically “develop” (not evolve) [11]. A streamlined vocabulary eliminates subjective terminology [12] and phrases like “evo-devo” that only Darwinian theory needs for it to connect to developmental Biology [13]. The result is a more complete model of reality which is not only useful [14] to scientists but also to computer programmers, artists, musicians, clergy, and anyone interested in knowing who and what we are, and where we came from [15].



[1]  Your proposal does not rise to the level of a scientific theory.  It fails to qualify because you have not defined your terms, provided supporting evidence, or actually explained anything, and most particularly because it has not reached any level of acceptance, even at the level of being found worthy of further consideration or investigation.  

2)  It doesn't explain anything.  It just makes a bunch of assertions in marginally comprehensible English.

3)  Not used in the normal sense of intelligent cause; no operational definition; no regular redefinition; no demonstration that this actually exists in any but the normal sense.

4) You can describe this as a premise, but you never get beyond re-asserting your premise and assuming your desired conclusions.  You give us no reason to accept your premises.

5) "Intelligent Design" has a history of applying to a very different concept from what you propose, and your ideas do not encompass design, nor intelligence as usually understood.  Also, "intelligent design" has completely failed as an intellectual enterprise, so why you would want to take over a name with such horrendous baggage is unclear.  IT's as if you were starting a party devoted to peace, love, and tolerance, but called it the Nazi Party because that name had been misused in the past.

6) Until you specify exactly which features are better explained this way, this is a meaningless exercise.

7) Again, "Intelligent cause" is going undefined, ill-explained, and unsupported.

8) You fail to justify why natural selection fails to explain certain features of living things.  Evidence for natural selection is very strong - it's well defined and well documented, and the few times you talk about biology you get your facts wrong - salmon as examplars of parental devotion, the function of the giraffe's laryngeal nerves, crocodile parenting, and on and on and on.

9) You have not demonstrated that learning can substitute for selection in evolutionary changes (and it can't).

10)  You have not documented that "guesses" can substitute for mutations.  Guessing is not a hallmark of intelligence.  Making guesses tends to happen when information and intelligence are insufficient to the task at hand - intelligence comes in more in learning from mistakes that result from poor guesses.

Prior to modern genetics, nothing learned in life can become part of the genetic inheritance.

11) Development during a life cycle affects the genome via natural selection, not the reverse.   Epigenetics does not really offer an alternative here, as epigenetic change has limited duration and presumably became an option via standard evolutionary pathways.

12) Presumably you are dissing natural selection again, but that is well documented in studies in the field and in the lab and in computer models.

13) You appear not to understand evo-devo.

14) Usefulness not yet demonstrated.

15) You have not yet demonstrated how standard interpretations fail in explaining "what we are and where we came from".

  
Henry J



Posts: 4788
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2017,11:44   

Surely you're not trying to confuse him with facts?

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 457
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2017,13:08   

Quote
Surely you're not trying to confuse him with facts?


No, "facts" aren't in Gaulin's pseudo-theory or his dictionary.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2017,16:22   

Well then, I will not waste my time feeding the trolls.

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

   
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2017,16:51   

I fully agree, but i have to add just one thing, in regards to this bit:

Gary, it is certainly true (and obvious) that not everything has to be explained by natural selection! But: Through all your incoherent blubbering, word-salad and ranting, you keep coming back to "cognitive ability" and "intelligence". I might be wrong here, and I'm sure you don't know for sure either, but I think whatever you are trying to do has something to do with the origin of intelligence.

And in this case, YES, you absolutely need are in the domain of things that are explained by evolution by natural selection! And if you try to advocate a process that does the same thing, without it involving selection, you definitely ARE arguing against natural selection, and evolution by means of natural selection as a whole.

"Intelligence" (as a baseline) is just an expression of certain genes, just like everything else. Depending on the animal, this might be a more or less complex interaction, but everything we know about how the whole process of evolution works tells us that this is fundamentally no different than eye-color, or the height. Intelligence is not some ethereal property that somehow defies evolution.

Imagine someone saying: "I'm not arguing against the theory of gravity! I just have my own theory, that says that certain objects not floating off into space is best explained by invisible sunfairies holding them down. Therefore, my theory doesn't need to rely on random processes like gravity."

Something like this -stupid as it may be- WOULD invalidate the whole theory of gravity as it were true.

Also, it's not just that you were "ignoring" natural selection, you were clearly actively arguing AGAINST it. Look at my second and third quote from you. The third one, for example, is the classical "Well, you can't explain how x came to be by means of natural-selection, can you?"-argument from ignorance.

  
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2017,17:04   

Just for the record:
When I said "I fully agree", I obviously meant N.Wells.

Gaulin is just panicking and calling everyone Trolls when he doesn't have a response :)

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2017,18:56   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 06 2017,16:51)
"Intelligence" (as a baseline) is just an expression of certain genes, just like everything else.

You really do sound like a false-flag troll.  Only a nitwit would believe your answer explains the fundamental basics of how minds/brains work. Experienced researchers all understand that there is much more to it than that.

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

   
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2017,19:46   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 06 2017,18:56)
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 06 2017,16:51)
"Intelligence" (as a baseline) is just an expression of certain genes, just like everything else.

You really do sound like a false-flag troll.  Only a nitwit would believe your answer explains the fundamental basics of how minds/brains work. Experienced researchers all understand that there is much more to it than that.

What do you not understand, Gary?
If you need help, we can try to clear things up and explain it in simpler terms. I know you are especially bad at this, so I will be very patient. Tell me what confuses you so badly this time.

Meanwhile, I will explain this very simply:
The evolution of intelligence in any species is closely linked to the evolution of the brain. We can show this quite easily, because we know which parts of the brainstructure handle which skills. For example: Animals with large cerebella are consistently better at fine-motor-skill-manipulation than animals with small cerebella. (Relative to the absolute size of the brain, of course.) You don't need to understand what a cerebellum is, just that it is one of those distinct parts of the brain.

Now, if we accept that how the brain is "built" is very closely linked to intelligence, we are already halfway there.

Because we also know and can show that how the brain forms is largely dependent on genetics. For some formations in the brain, we even know which genes are responsible! Isn't that neat?

Obviously, there are factors for each individual animal on how these genes express themselves. This is nothing special about intelligence either. For example, height is pretty straightforward hereditary. If your parents both are tall, you have a pretty good chance of also being above average height. BUT: If you don't get enough nutrition while growing up, you may end up only average.
In this case "nutrition" is a factor that influences how the genes for height can express themselves. They still set the baseline, but they aren't the only influence.
That doesn't mean that genes for height aren't just another evolved feature, and -depending on the environment- might heighten or lessen survival, which means they are subject to selection. The same is true for intelligence, of course.

We have absolutely no reason to believe that the genes that form our brains, work fundamentally different than the genes that determine our height, hair color or the length of our arms. There is no point in mystifying intelligence, just because it's what makes us humans special, and it's such a complex thing.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2592
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2017,20:14   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 06 2017,16:51)


Now, if we accept that how the brain is "built" is very closely linked to intelligence, we are already halfway there.

And cue GG reversing cause and effect in 3...2...

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1503
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2017,20:16   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 06 2017,19:46)
There is no point in mystifying intelligence, just because it's what makes us humans special, and it's such a complex thing.

Unless one was hell bent on smuggling in one's religious baggage while quixotically trying to settle an argument by telling everyone else they're wrong and proving oneself superior to all those snobs who think they're better than Gary one.

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

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 370
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2017,21:01   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2017,20:38)

My priorities are with the pioneering of an emerging science, where a cognitive model is required for you to even be taken seriously.

Then it's abundantly clear by your own words that you do not have a cognitive model Gary, since you are not taken seriously by anyone.

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
Henry J



Posts: 4788
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2017,21:02   

Quote
There is no point in mystifying intelligence, just because it's what makes us humans special, and it's such a complex thing.

But does it make us special? Without a common language, we can't really get a good measure of intelligence of dolphins, crows, or octopi, with which to compare theirs to ours.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1503
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2017,21:12   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 06 2017,21:02)
Quote
There is no point in mystifying intelligence, just because it's what makes us humans special, and it's such a complex thing.

But does it make us special? Without a common language, we can't really get a good measure of intelligence of dolphins, crows, or octopi, with which to compare theirs to ours.

Quote
Bender: Who wants dolphin?
Leela: Dolphin? But dolphins are intelligent.
Bender: Not this one. He blew all his money on instant lottery tickets.
Fry: OK.
Leela: Oh, OK.
Amy: That's different.
Farnsworth: Good, good.
Leela: Pass the blowhole.
Amy: Can I have a fluke?
Hermes: Hey, quit hogging the bottle-nose.
Farnsworth: Toss me the speech centre of the brain!


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

  
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2017,14:53   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 06 2017,21:02)
Quote
There is no point in mystifying intelligence, just because it's what makes us humans special, and it's such a complex thing.

But does it make us special? Without a common language, we can't really get a good measure of intelligence of dolphins, crows, or octopi, with which to compare theirs to ours.

Well, at least it's our particular kind of intelligence is special. Whether it's "better" than other animals...
Kinda depends on what you value, and we as humans obviously value the things our brain is specialized to do. Interesting point!

Anywho, there is no reason to make the attribute of "intelligence" something ethereal and special, that somehow defies evolution. That was what I was trying to explain to Gary, because he keeps saying evolution by natural selection doesn't apply, so him saying that he doesn't need it is not arguing against it.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2017,22:51   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 07 2017,14:53)
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 06 2017,21:02)
Quote
There is no point in mystifying intelligence, just because it's what makes us humans special, and it's such a complex thing.

But does it make us special? Without a common language, we can't really get a good measure of intelligence of dolphins, crows, or octopi, with which to compare theirs to ours.

Well, at least it's our particular kind of intelligence is special. Whether it's "better" than other animals...
Kinda depends on what you value, and we as humans obviously value the things our brain is specialized to do. Interesting point!

Anywho, there is no reason to make the attribute of "intelligence" something ethereal and special, that somehow defies evolution. That was what I was trying to explain to Gary, because he keeps saying evolution by natural selection doesn't apply, so him saying that he doesn't need it is not arguing against it.

Do you consider your level of self-esteem to be high, medium, or low?

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

   
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2017,17:58   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 07 2017,22:51)
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 07 2017,14:53)
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 06 2017,21:02)
 
Quote
There is no point in mystifying intelligence, just because it's what makes us humans special, and it's such a complex thing.

But does it make us special? Without a common language, we can't really get a good measure of intelligence of dolphins, crows, or octopi, with which to compare theirs to ours.

Well, at least it's our particular kind of intelligence is special. Whether it's "better" than other animals...
Kinda depends on what you value, and we as humans obviously value the things our brain is specialized to do. Interesting point!

Anywho, there is no reason to make the attribute of "intelligence" something ethereal and special, that somehow defies evolution. That was what I was trying to explain to Gary, because he keeps saying evolution by natural selection doesn't apply, so him saying that he doesn't need it is not arguing against it.

Do you consider your level of self-esteem to be high, medium, or low?

Oh hi Gary, you seem to have conveniently missed the part of the conversation that was explicitly addressed at you...

Let me give you a small reminder: I explained to you how intelligence in animals is nothing special, compared to any other attribute, that is is linked to the way each brain is formed, which in turn is linked to genetics, just like any other trait. And I explained to you in very simply terms, that it is therefore subject to natural selection, which means you are arguing against natural selection, if you say you have an "alternative" theory that does not rely on it.

Do you understand that now?

If you are going to peddle intelligent design, don't pretend it's something it demonstrably isn't, just because you have disingenuinely decided to arbitrarily accept some scientific theories, without even understanding them.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2017,19:43   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 08 2017,17:58)
If you are going to peddle intelligent design, don't pretend it's something it demonstrably isn't, just because you have disingenuinely decided to arbitrarily accept some scientific theories, without even understanding them.

I had a long tiring work week, and need to try getting some work done on the next generation computer model for explaining the basics of how intelligence works (at all levels of biology).

You honestly only look ridiculous by trying to argue that "evolution by natural selection" answers the big questions in cognitive science. If that were true then cognitive scientists would have nothing left to do. Your models of human level intelligence would have set them straight. In reality though: the only thing you have presented are insulting excuses for not having the cognitive model you are pretending to have. If you did have one then it would look like this and have a circuit to test in robots and such:



sites.google.com/site/theoryofid/home/TheoryOfIntelligentDesign.pdf

--------------
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: 457
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2017,01:16   

Quote
I had a long tiring work week,[..]


Number 1 on the list of excuses used by Gaulin, it will be the teeth next!

And then the meaningless diagram... again.

Wait for the obligatory music video and we have the trifecta of avoiding the questions asked of him.

   
Quote
and need to try getting some work done on the next generation computer model for explaining the basics of how intelligence works (at all levels of biology).


Have you tried stand-up comedy, Gaulin? This made me laugh out loud! "Next generation"! You cannot breed from your eunuch of a "theory"! So there is no "First generation" to even discuss (not that you do discuss any thing to do with your crap).

Coldfire, remember rule 1 of Gaulin thread.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 457
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2017,07:15   

Gaulin, here is a series on BBC which will make you throw your "theory" out with the other trash.

The human Brain

Enjoy or not as you will.

  
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2017,12:16   

Quote
and need to try getting some work done on the next generation computer model for explaining the basics of how intelligence works (at all levels of biology).


No, you don't need to do that. Literally no one asked you to do that, no one wants you to do that, and no one will ever think it has any sort of value. And you know that! Otherwise you would try to get it published in peer review. But we've been over this, and you know for a fact you would get rejected hard, if you attempted to submit it to a real peer-review-process. So you announced that you reject the notion of peer-review.

In essence, you know that you are doing this for no one else but yourself, like a hamster running in his little wheel. You know what you do demonstrably has no value, outside of whatever you -and only you- attach to it. So don't use "I have to get this done" as an excuse to avoid questions.

So, once again: Do you now understand/accept that intelligence (as a baseline) is a product of how the brain is formed, which in turn is a product of our genes, which in turn are subject to natural selection? Just answer the question, it's pretty straight forward. (if you answer "no", you might need to point out where you think there's a mistake in my explanation. If you answer "yes", you can accept the consequences of that and throw a good part of your pdf-"theory" out in the trash where is belongs.)

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2017,15:26   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 09 2017,12:16)
So, once again: Do you now understand/accept that intelligence (as a baseline) is a product of how the brain is formed, which in turn is a product of our genes, which in turn are subject to natural selection?

To reiterate: So what?

We already know that. Still does not answer what cognitive scientists most want to know.

It's hard to beat 24/7 peer-review, while having fun keeping up with those from others. Here is another link to where the action's most at for me:

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/profile/gary-s-gaulin

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

   
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2017,18:11   

Quote
To reiterate: So what?


So, when, when talking about the origin of intelligence, that is completely incompatible with nonsense like
Quote
certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.


Because when talking about the feature "intelligence", it is best explained by natural selection, as I explained! And yet, your entire word salad seems to be built upon that idea.

Quote
Here is another link to where the action's most at for me:

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/profile/gary-s-gaulin


That is literally just an internet-forum with random people talking about a myriad of topics, none of which they seem to be speaking about in any professional capacity.

This is not research or science. There is no "action" happening there. How often do I have to repeat this? Science happens in peer-reviewed respectable journals, not blogs. If you actually thought you had something other than meaningless drivel, you would submit it. But we've been over this on reddit already. You understood you would immediately get rejected, and in turn, refused to accept the very process of peer review.

This is a delusion of yours Gary. No one is taking your nonsense "theory" seriously, no matter what site you post it on.
You posted it on those kurzweil forums as well, didn't you? Surely they took you seriously? Let's take a look at the responses you got, shall we?

Quote
You gotta be fucking kidding me. We all see through your bullshit, Gary. Get your creationist ass off this forum.


Quote
I find that there are at least a few unprovable assumptions which could greatly influence the interpretation of whatever data you have collected


Quote
Most of this is an a priori argument without any form of a priori evidence.


Quote
this paper has very little to offer in actual evidence other than suppositions and geussing whats possible without even gauging how probable because there is no path of contextual evidence to use.


Quote
Your paper is flawed in it's fundamental premise of non-randomness. I'd not spend any more time trying to 'prove' it, and go enjoy a nice round of golf or something.


Quote
Two words: Bull shit


Quote
there is no such thing as "molecular intelligence".


Quote
Infinit regression is only a problem if your trying to prove the existence of god. You said your not. I see you lied. I also see thar your planning to teach these ideas to children. So your going to pack your mind virus into an attractive package for the consumption of children.


This is really getting sad, Gary. Get help. So many different people have, independently from each other, told you that your "theory" is not science, and doesn't even make sense. So far, you have been unable to answer even the most basic questions about it.
And yet, you keep investing literally years of your life into what at this point reads like schizophrenic ramblings. No one will ever find any value in this, it's meaningless word salad.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2017,19:26   

You sure are a pompous ass. And you only have old junk from the distant past on your side. Jerk....

--------------
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: 1503
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2017,19:37   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 09 2017,19:26)
You sure are a pompous ass. And you only have old junk from the distant past on your side. Jerk....

We'll take facts and evidence from the past over gibberish from the present every day of the week, Gary.

Personally, I think a jerk is someone who claims on one page that he isn't against natural selection, then on the next claims it's "junk from the past".

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

  
  18216 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (608) < ... 593 594 595 596 597 [598] 599 600 601 602 603 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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