Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Posted: Sep. 09 2017,20:12

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 09 2017,21:26)

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

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

Can't help but notice what you call 'action' is in fact you posting stuff at the Kurzweil forum and being ignored by everyone there.

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Sep. 09 2017,20:26

I think I'm going to have to stop reading this forum. It has become too depressing. Scientific discussions proved to be impossible.

--------------
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

Posted: Sep. 09 2017,21:59

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 09 2017,20:26)

I think I'm going to have to stop reading this forum. It has become too depressing. Scientific discussions proved to be impossible.

With you, yes.

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"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Sep. 09 2017,22:39

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....

Remind me of the publication dates of your major citations, and how many recent citations they have.

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

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Sep. 09 2017,23:56

The "publish or perish" mentality is rearing its ugly head again. Help figuring out how to explain this outside of the how-to environment that I thrive in is not allowed.

Those who do not do everything on their own then crawl on their knees to a publisher will have their work trashed, until they do. Then after that there is one more paper in one of thousands of journals few people actually keep up with, especially in the how-to community. After factoring in how much is kept a trade secret or for some other reason was never published it's actually a bad way to try keeping up all happening in science.

I'm very against this form of academic snobbery, I'm now helping to make gone. Get real please.

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

fnxtr

Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Sep. 10 2017,01:34

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 09 2017,18:26)

I think I'm going to have to stop reading this forum. It has become too depressing. Scientific discussions proved to be impossible.

So... which pseudo-flounce is this again? Anyone? I've lost count.

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

Posted: Sep. 10 2017,02:51

Quote

The "publish or perish" mentality is rearing its ugly head again. Help figuring out how to explain this outside of the how-to environment that I thrive in is not allowed.

Those who do not do everything on their own then crawl on their knees to a publisher will have their work trashed, until they do. Then after that there is one more paper in one of thousands of journals few people actually keep up with, especially in the how-to community. After factoring in how much is kept a trade secret or for some other reason was never published it's actually a bad way to try keeping up all happening in science.

I'm very against this form of academic snobbery, I'm now helping to make gone. Get real please.

And we are back into Gaulinese. The words are English but in this order are otherwise meaningless.

Here are a few "how to" questions for you Gaulin;

1) How to determine "molecular intelligence?
2) How to determine "Cellular intelligence"?
3) How to determine if single cell clusters are "intelligent"?

Feel free to ignore answering these questions because you can't even attempt them with your "theory".

If your "theory" cannot provide evidence for any of these it is bullshit. (yes, I know it is bullshit).

And "real" has been added to the Gaulinese dictionary as another word Gaulin doesn't understand.

Texas Teach

Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Sep. 10 2017,08:39

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 09 2017,23:56)

The "publish or perish" mentality is rearing its ugly head again. Help figuring out how to explain this outside of the how-to environment that I thrive in is not allowed.

Those who do not do everything on their own then crawl on their knees to a publisher will have their work trashed, until they do. Then after that there is one more paper in one of thousands of journals few people actually keep up with, especially in the how-to community. After factoring in how much is kept a trade secret or for some other reason was never published it's actually a bad way to try keeping up all happening in science.

I'm very against this form of academic snobbery, I'm now helping to make gone. Get real please.

Gary, you've predictably misunderstood Wesley's questions. Look up some of the big words and try again.

While you're doing that, would you please tell us about some of the remarkable advancements in science made by your "how to" community?

--------------
"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: 62
Joined: Sep. 2017

Posted: Sep. 10 2017,12:19

Quote (ChemiCat @ Sep. 10 2017,02:51)

Quote

The "publish or perish" mentality is rearing its ugly head again. Help figuring out how to explain this outside of the how-to environment that I thrive in is not allowed.

Those who do not do everything on their own then crawl on their knees to a publisher will have their work trashed, until they do. Then after that there is one more paper in one of thousands of journals few people actually keep up with, especially in the how-to community. After factoring in how much is kept a trade secret or for some other reason was never published it's actually a bad way to try keeping up all happening in science.

I'm very against this form of academic snobbery, I'm now helping to make gone. Get real please.

And we are back into Gaulinese. The words are English but in this order are otherwise meaningless.

Here are a few "how to" questions for you Gaulin;

1) How to determine "molecular intelligence?
2) How to determine "Cellular intelligence"?
3) How to determine if single cell clusters are "intelligent"?

Feel free to ignore answering these questions because you can't even attempt them with your "theory".

If your "theory" cannot provide evidence for any of these it is bullshit. (yes, I know it is bullshit).

And "real" has been added to the Gaulinese dictionary as another word Gaulin doesn't understand.

What is he even trying to say here? I read this 3 times, and I genuinely can't find a logical connection. I get his motivation behind the post: He wants to continue playing scientist, so he needs an excuse for the fact that he never has been published and never will be published, by somehow railing against peer review.

But what he's actually saying literally doesn't seem to even have a connection to that, or anything else for that matter. Seriously, can someone help me understand this incoherent assortment of words?

Quote

The "publish or perish" mentality is rearing its ugly head again.

My best guess here is that Gary does not know what the phrase is meant to convey, because it doesn't apply to him at all, seeing how he is not in academia, has never published anything, and is doing his wordsalad out of his own volition from his basement.

Quote

Help figuring out how to explain this outside of the how-to environment that I thrive in is not allowed.

WHAT? Explain what? All he has mentioned before was the "publish-or-perish-mentality". Why would that need explaining? And why would it not be allowed to help figuring out how it explain it? Who doesn't allow it? And what the hell is the "how-to-environment"?

Also, I'm pretty sure it's another delusion that Gary "strives" in it. So far, at any point that Gary has posted his nonsense-"theory" on any platform, it was resoundingly rejected. I posted quotes from the kurzweil-forums to his "theory" in my last post. I was there when he presented it to reddit (the same, rejected as unscientific and stupid), and you guys know how well it worked out out here. So I have yet to see any community that doesn't immediately see through this pile of not even pseudoscience. (The only ones who are kinda open to it are other cdesign proponentsists)
So, please Gary, show us where we can find the responses of this "how-to-environment" to your "theory"! I wanna see you thrive.

Quote

Those who do not do everything on their own then crawl on their knees to a publisher will have their work trashed, until they do.

What the hell is he trying to communicate here? That you have to do everything on your own to get through peer-review? There are lots of team, co-authors and so on, cooperation is a huge part of academia. So he can't really mean that. But then again, I have no idea what he could mean.

Quote

Then after that there is one more paper in one of thousands of journals few people actually keep up with, especially in the how-to community.

Hey! Apart from the weird grammar and the mention of this unexplained "how-to-community", this sentence is pretty straighforward. It's still wrong, stupid, and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding about how science works, but hey, at least I understood what he

Quote

wanted

to say.

Quote

After factoring in how much is kept a trade secret or for some other reason was never published it's actually a bad way to try keeping up all happening in science.

Oh, okay, we're back to sentences that don't even relate to anything. I guess he is railing against peer-review again? Does he now think he has a better alternative? Is it "posting" blogs at random people on the internet? We'll never know.

Anyone up to helping me interpret this weird gibberish?

Texas Teach

Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Sep. 10 2017,13:07

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 10 2017,12:19)

Quote (ChemiCat @ Sep. 10 2017,02:51)

Quote

The "publish or perish" mentality is rearing its ugly head again. Help figuring out how to explain this outside of the how-to environment that I thrive in is not allowed.

Those who do not do everything on their own then crawl on their knees to a publisher will have their work trashed, until they do. Then after that there is one more paper in one of thousands of journals few people actually keep up with, especially in the how-to community. After factoring in how much is kept a trade secret or for some other reason was never published it's actually a bad way to try keeping up all happening in science.

I'm very against this form of academic snobbery, I'm now helping to make gone. Get real please.

And we are back into Gaulinese. The words are English but in this order are otherwise meaningless.

Here are a few "how to" questions for you Gaulin;

1) How to determine "molecular intelligence?
2) How to determine "Cellular intelligence"?
3) How to determine if single cell clusters are "intelligent"?

Feel free to ignore answering these questions because you can't even attempt them with your "theory".

If your "theory" cannot provide evidence for any of these it is bullshit. (yes, I know it is bullshit).

And "real" has been added to the Gaulinese dictionary as another word Gaulin doesn't understand.

What is he even trying to say here? I read this 3 times, and I genuinely can't find a logical connection. I get his motivation behind the post: He wants to continue playing scientist, so he needs an excuse for the fact that he never has been published and never will be published, by somehow railing against peer review.

But what he's actually saying literally doesn't seem to even have a connection to that, or anything else for that matter. Seriously, can someone help me understand this incoherent assortment of words?

Quote

The "publish or perish" mentality is rearing its ugly head again.

My best guess here is that Gary does not know what the phrase is meant to convey, because it doesn't apply to him at all, seeing how he is not in academia, has never published anything, and is doing his wordsalad out of his own volition from his basement.

Quote

Help figuring out how to explain this outside of the how-to environment that I thrive in is not allowed.

WHAT? Explain what? All he has mentioned before was the "publish-or-perish-mentality". Why would that need explaining? And why would it not be allowed to help figuring out how it explain it? Who doesn't allow it? And what the hell is the "how-to-environment"?

Also, I'm pretty sure it's another delusion that Gary "strives" in it. So far, at any point that Gary has posted his nonsense-"theory" on any platform, it was resoundingly rejected. I posted quotes from the kurzweil-forums to his "theory" in my last post. I was there when he presented it to reddit (the same, rejected as unscientific and stupid), and you guys know how well it worked out out here. So I have yet to see any community that doesn't immediately see through this pile of not even pseudoscience. (The only ones who are kinda open to it are other cdesign proponentsists)
So, please Gary, show us where we can find the responses of this "how-to-environment" to your "theory"! I wanna see you thrive.

Quote

Those who do not do everything on their own then crawl on their knees to a publisher will have their work trashed, until they do.

What the hell is he trying to communicate here? That you have to do everything on your own to get through peer-review? There are lots of team, co-authors and so on, cooperation is a huge part of academia. So he can't really mean that. But then again, I have no idea what he could mean.

Quote

Then after that there is one more paper in one of thousands of journals few people actually keep up with, especially in the how-to community.

Hey! Apart from the weird grammar and the mention of this unexplained "how-to-community", this sentence is pretty straighforward. It's still wrong, stupid, and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding about how science works, but hey, at least I understood what he

Quote

wanted

to say.

Quote

After factoring in how much is kept a trade secret or for some other reason was never published it's actually a bad way to try keeping up all happening in science.

Oh, okay, we're back to sentences that don't even relate to anything. I guess he is railing against peer-review again? Does he now think he has a better alternative? Is it "posting" blogs at random people on the internet? We'll never know.

Anyone up to helping me interpret this weird gibberish?

Oh stewardess, I speak Gaulinese.

Gary has misunderstood Wesley's request to look at his references to see how hypocritical he's being about old information as a request for proof of where Gary is published. Gary believes peer review is rigged against him because he was told at some point in the past that he couldn't get funding as just some random crank on the internet, and those who know how science works have told him is notions are too incoherent to publish.

So Gary thinks he would be forced to slave away without all the money the academic scientists are unfairly hoarding, then have them "trash" his genius by pointing out all the flaws in it. And he's thrown in a little swipe at corporate research being corrupt for good measure. He believes this is all "snobbery" rather than the legitimate rejection of an uneducated lunatic with delusions of grandeur.

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

fnxtr

Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Sep. 10 2017,13:15

Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 10 2017,11:07)

Oh stewardess, I speak Gaulinese.

Had a laugh because we just watched this last night.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

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

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Sep. 10 2017,13:41

The model/theory only has to be biologically true. All shame goes to those who didn't care.

So go ahead, verbally beat me until I'm dead. See where that gets you.

--------------
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

Posted: Sep. 10 2017,13:51

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 10 2017,13:41)

The model/theory only has to be biologically true.

This is what we keep telling you, you strange sad little man. All the evidence says it isn't. You've provided nothing but a cartoon that has no connection to biology.

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

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Sep. 10 2017,14:24

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 10 2017,13:41)

The model/theory only has to be biologically true. All shame goes to those who didn't care.

So go ahead, verbally beat me until I'm dead. See where that gets you.

Yes, we would like any model or theory to be grounded in reality and to be supported by some actual evidence. It also needs to be internally consistent and logical, to be expressed in clear and comprehensible English using standard terminology properly or to come with clear and justified redefinitions, and not to be contradicted by any available evidence. So "only" is incorrect (quite apart from your problem that none of those other attributes describe your nonsense either.) Your model doesn't actually have to be known to be "true" - "truth" is an unobtainable goal for scientific theories and models. To be useful, a theory only needs to be as good as or better than the best of its competitors.

"All shame goes to those who didn't care." Say what? And why "didn't"? Why "those who don't care?" - the vast majority of scientists, let alone the general public, don't care about the vast majority of theories, nor should they. Why "all shame?" - you don't need to reserve at least a little shame for criminals, Neo-Nazis, and the like?

Disagreeing with you gets a bunch of people on the record as arguing that your ideas are seriously flawed, which is fine by us. The more useful question is where your insistence on your pile of nonsense gets you.

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Sep. 10 2017,15:21

They never stop making excuses for their ignorance.

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

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Sep. 10 2017,18:59

s/They/I/;s/their/my/

Tony M Nyphot

Posts: 491
Joined: June 2008

Posted: Sep. 10 2017,22:23

Same as it ever was

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 09 2017,19:26)

I think I'm going to have to stop reading this forum.

Same as it ever was

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 05 2016,19:56)

Now that things are going great at Reddit and elsewhere I may soon need to stop posting in this cesspool of a forum. I had enough arguing with assholes.

Same as it ever was

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Dec. 05 2016,20:21)

1. Everyone here remembers what it really means when you say "things are going great" at another forum (see my signature for an example)

2. You will always need to post in this forum as it is one of the few where you can get a fix when your attention-whore addiction fails to be satiated by delusional self-aggrandizement

3. As N. Wells notes just a few posts preceding this one, the asshole you find conflict with most frequently is yourself...not sure what you can do about that

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

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Sep. 10 2017,22:38

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 09 2017,23:56)

The "publish or perish" mentality is rearing its ugly head again. Help figuring out how to explain this outside of the how-to environment that I thrive in is not allowed.

Those who do not do everything on their own then crawl on their knees to a publisher will have their work trashed, until they do. Then after that there is one more paper in one of thousands of journals few people actually keep up with, especially in the how-to community. After factoring in how much is kept a trade secret or for some other reason was never published it's actually a bad way to try keeping up all happening in science.

I'm very against this form of academic snobbery, I'm now helping to make gone. Get real please.

Gary Gaulin:

Quote

And you only have old junk from the distant past on your side.

Your words.

So, how old are the sources you rely upon, and how useful do others beside yourself find them in the current context? The answers are not difficult to determine.

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

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Sep. 11 2017,02:33

Considering all the stress this theory causes me: be thankful I didn't just unload a bunch of swear word filled anger!

In the days before electronic forums scientists in a given field networked together by publishing a journal in which they posted/published their ideas. Replies would be in the next issue to be published. The system worked great, for that period in time.

In the internet age journals became so easy to start there were soon thousands of them. These days even Ken Ham has a spiffy looking journal. Journals still work for neuroscience and other fields where you need a lab under strict settings with white lab coats and all sorts of neat science gizmos that go, "Beep!"

The problem now is sifting through an information overload of papers from all areas of science, for a model/theory that requires all of them. This one even includes music science. It's the most multidisciplinary challenge imaginable, hence an information overload that can drive a person crazy just trying to keep up with!

Neuroscientists gather neural data that others fields like AI (for modeling purposes) sometimes needs, but neuroscience does not much concerned with what happens in AI or how their information applies internally to cells and genomes, there are separate areas of science with their own journals for that too. And as was recently posted (not by me) the information is increasingly a website with data to experiment with:

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/101-nights-of-dream-data-high-density-eeg-from-single-individual

The way scientific information is now shared is very different than it was in the old days that ended while I was growing up.

My passion has always been to develop emerging technologies. So how here I am on the internet. All I need to do now is add my old radio theme song and I'm on the air again, this time with another AI driven broadcasting related thing that (for the sake of science) I have to weird you out with. As before, I have no way of knowing what the outcome will be exactly, I just know that something of social value eventually will.

Although science journals still work for many, controversial areas such as the evolutionary sciences became a journal focused circus. Even the Royal Society conference was influenced by the way things now are. The only way I know how to effectively change that is for journals to adapt to needs of people like me where there is something happening worth reporting to a number of scientific fields. I have no problem with a journal occasionally playing matchmaker to someone who would love that kind of mission. Where successful in getting the science right they in my opinion deserve credit as coauthor. The "science writers" in turn write about a paper they coauthored, as opposed to their having joined the circus going on in that realm.

Where all goes well things have a wild but happy ending. It's just like the FCC having to take me off the FM band after hearing about the two+ year project then impose a $750 forfeiture after I in writing admitted to operating and was proud to have shown off to their field officer named Victor, who tracked down the signal I kept on 24/7 long after it was reported in the newspapers that they were coming for me. I proved I was not trying to hide something. It was just a science project that led to a whole lot of commotion over almost nothing. I vowed to keep the radio thing going, and am, using the latest new technology people network together with. It's something that later benefits all concerned, that lasts and lasts instead of being a novelty that comes and goes like the AI-DJ was destined for after text-to-speech generation was something that all heard before.

It's still maybe possible that in a wave of inspiration I will finally know how to explain things. But I first need to finish cleaning up the code in the model, before having what I would need for a science journal quality how-to. That is because the "theory" is only the explanation for how the biological model works. I must make sure that the model comes first, or else the power of science will zap us all real good for not having done so. Only the Discovery Institute should be foolish enough to put a "theory" ahead of a working "model". Metaphorically speaking: getting the order exactly right switches on a hidden moving shock zone that gets larger every time they get it wrong again.

--------------
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

Posted: Sep. 11 2017,03:19

Beep! Beep! I'm a Gaulin bot!

I only type the words in random order. It is up to you humans to make sense of them

Quote/: Long screed of self-pity and gibberish. /unquote.

ChemiCat

Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

Posted: Sep. 11 2017,07:40

Paging Texas Teach, paging Texas Teach.

Translation required at the rear of the 'plane.

You know the rear where all the waste is extruded.

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Sep. 11 2017,09:27

Something was lost in the translation?!? Surely not!

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Sep. 11 2017,10:24

Quote

The only way I know how to effectively change that is for journals to adapt to needs of people like me where there is something happening worth reporting to a number of scientific fields.

Assuming facts not in evidence, about your having something worth reporting. Demonstrate that you have something worth paying attention to.

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Sep. 11 2017,11:51

Restoring the context Gary deleted:

Quote

And you only have old junk from the distant past on your side.

Your words.

So, how old are the sources you rely upon, and how useful do others beside yourself find them in the current context? The answers are not difficult to determine.

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 11 2017,02:33)

Considering all the stress this theory causes me: be thankful I didn't just unload a bunch of swear word filled anger!

[...]

We've seen that before, though.

We've also seen the complete dodging of the question.

Gary raised the issue of the age and quality of things, so I asked what age and demonstrable current utility the things Gary relies upon have.

Age is simple to answer, and Gary hasn't even done that. (It's old, we know, so the "old" part fits from Gary's rant. It's not like we didn't already know it was old.)

Current utility can be answered with a literature search for citations, and Gary hasn't done that, either.

There's nothing that's been requested that bears upon whether Gary himself can get published or the difficulty thereof, or difficulties in finding information. Bafflegab about that flushed.

That doesn't leave much, does it?

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

JohnW

Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Sep. 11 2017,12:44

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 11 2017,00:33)

Considering all the stress this theory causes me: be thankful I didn't just unload a bunch of swear word filled anger!

1. Harvey
2. Irma
3. 8.2 earthquake
4. Jose
5. Gary says he isn't going to post an incoherent rant*

It's the end times.

*Yes, I know the rest of his post was an incoherent rant. But still...

--------------
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

Texas Teach

Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Sep. 11 2017,16:32

Quote (ChemiCat @ Sep. 11 2017,07:40)

Paging Texas Teach, paging Texas Teach.

Translation required at the rear of the 'plane.

You know the rear where all the waste is extruded.

A bunch of blathering about scientific communication that is equal parts accurate but trivial and misconceptions.

Some delusions of grandeur where Gary thinks his ideas can't be published in field specific journals because he's created a theory of everything. (Hey, Gary: neither Science nor Nature are discipline specific. Excuse destroyed.)

Waxing romantic about his days on unlicensed radio, Gary sees himself as fighting The Man.

Delusions of relevance with dreams of how you'll find joy in the weird things Gary serendipitously discovers.

A paragraph I can't parse about journals finding people to do something that isn't clear.

More revisionist history with the FCC and the fantasy that he's running a pirate radio station when he posts on the Internet.

Wrapping up with the things he must do to be scientific without realizing he skipped the most crucial element: evidence.

I need a brain shower now.

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

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Sep. 11 2017,22:32

Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 11 2017,16:32)

Waxing romantic about his days on unlicensed radio, Gary sees himself as fighting The Man.

When "The Man" in that situation came looking for me I provided a homing signal to got them here without missing a single turn off the highway, then we both ended up having a great time talking about radio electronics and other things. Having to sign off afterwards made wife cry, I was sad too. But for me the days of nervously waiting for "The Man" to finally arrive were at least over. With all considered I and others concerned were able to be thankful everything went so well.

Dozens of "The Man" scientists and science educators (sometimes with students) from academia have been very thankful for the scientific resources I later provide. I'm not expected to have to write the science papers. That's the job of "The Man" from academia who devoted their live's to writing them and just needs something original to help build their academic careers with. They prefer I leave all of that up to them, and I gladly do. There is thus no fighting at all there either.

What I outlined in the previous reply is what "The Man" and I consider normal teamwork. We together already greatly added to and changed what science teachers can now explain in regards to the region's prehistoric past. It's an enlightenment filled Man On The Silver Mountain thing.

The oddity is that you and a relatively small number of others are for some reason fighting against science fun like that spreading through your stick in the mud forum. You already proved to be the most devoted modern scribe I know of, so you're already all set for fame just by making backups and whatever else it takes to make sure its words (especially this thread) live on...

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

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Sep. 11 2017,23:28

From spring of 1989 to summer of 1997, I operated the Central Neural System BBS. This dial-up resource provided the usual FidoNET node amenities with access to a selection of Echo discussion fora, plus my file collection of artificial intelligence, artificial neural network, and genetic algorithm resources. I founded the NEURAL_NET and EVOLUTION echoes. The file collection is now available via archives at Carnegie Mellon University. While the BBS operated, it got dial-ins from around the world, serving people looking for code and guidance on the technical topics I had made the focus of the BBS.

The Central Neural System BBS was not a local phenomenon; it served a world-wide audience. It was not evanescent; it lasted for many years and produced a collection that is of some value to this day.

And all of it was completely legal.

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

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Sep. 11 2017,23:52

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 11 2017,11:51)

So, how old are the sources you rely upon, and how useful do others beside yourself find them in the current context?

The model started from the 1979 work from David Heiserman then 1991 Arnold Trehub then what finally brought it to life real good and provided the ultimate test for its spatial reasoning power was found in Dynamic Grouping of Hippocampal Neural Activity During Cognitive Control of Two Spatial Frames, 2010.

You will have to operationally define "current context" because David Heiserman described cells having what the How To Build Your Self-Programming Robot explains working inside them, for navigating their tiny water world. I found the concept to be extremely useful. It's one of the reasons I made sure to study every sentence in the book until I understood all of it.

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

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012