RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (608) < ... 599 600 601 602 603 [604] 605 606 607 608 >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2017,15:54   

Related information:
www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/servo-magazine-experimenting-with-machine-intelligence#post-815179

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2017,16:01   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 30 2017,16:44)
Oh wow, an amateur without scientific training is "ahead of [professional scientists] in explaining the most fundamental basics of how our brains work?" This is amazing, especially considering how well we already understand those basics! By all means, please show me the paper where that amateurs findings are published? Which peer-reviewed journal published them, I could look it up for myself!

I must now reannounce that Wesley's need for more evidence that others besides myself found "utility" in David Heiserman's methodology has thus far led to Camp directing me to a very experienced educator who was also influenced enough by him for the influence to be obvious in their work, who then contacted the publisher in regards to our sharing an excellent article he wrote, which resulted in their agreeing to post this on their website so it will be open access to everyone!

EXPERIMENTING WITH MACHINE INTELLIGENCE
www.servomagazine.com/index.php/magazine/article/October2013_Blankenship

And so you'll have his words exactly this is what John Blankenship said to me via email:
     
Quote
I have often found that many see new ideas, especially those that are presented in a simple and precise manner, as trivial. It often seems to me that those in power often like to make their work seem as complex as possible.  I know that my work in many cases is far from cutting edge, but I do feel there are merits of many of the ideas that could be utilized in more high-end approaches. For me, most of my goals are to entice students into the field, to create passion and desire, to build a future that often looks bleak in current days.


From my perspective "amateurs" are those who do not know what robotic engineers, programmers and others who are actually working on your future robot overlords have long been reading and learning their basics from.

--------------
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: Oct. 04 2017,16:09   

Gary, this is not going to go away just by you plugging your ears and going "lalalala-Ican'thearyou!"

I know you anti-science-advocates like to avoid questions, but I'm not gonna just let you.

Answer the question, or I everyone will take it as the ultimate concession that you don't have an answer, and there isn't even a difference:

What exactly is the difference between an intelligent cause, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things";  and an intelligent designer, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things".

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2017,16:31   

More good news:
phys.org/news/2017-10-evidence-life-earth-meteorites-splashed.html

Relates to:
originoflifeaquarium.blogspot.com/

--------------
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: Oct. 04 2017,16:47   

Well, you heard it: Gary admits that he can't answer what the difference between an intelligent cause and and intelligent designer is.

(Not that it would make much difference, Gary has never provided evidence for either. But it is still fun seeing him panic at the question and desperately flailing to change the topic and distract. Thanks Gary, you made my night ;))

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2017,16:58   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Oct. 04 2017,16:47)
Well, you heard it: Gary admits that he can't answer what the difference between an intelligent cause and and intelligent designer is.

Intelligent Designer related questions such as those are best answered at this forum:
www.reddit.com/r/askashittyphilosopher/

--------------
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: Oct. 04 2017,17:27   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 04 2017,16:58)
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Oct. 04 2017,16:47)
Well, you heard it: Gary admits that he can't answer what the difference between an intelligent cause and and intelligent designer is.

Intelligent Designer related questions such as those are best answered at this forum:
www.reddit.com/r/askashittyphilosopher/

You are the one protesting that there is a difference between the two, and you are the making the claim that an intelligent cause is the best explanation for some unspecified features of the universe and living things.

So you should be the one to be able to answer what the difference is. Not being able to do so is a direct admission that you are just spouting woo-woo.

But you can't, you have made that abundantly clear now by refusing to answer for the 5th time. But I'm nice, and give you a yet another chance. Answer this simple question:

What exactly is the difference between an intelligent cause, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things";  and an intelligent designer, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things"

The first thing is something you are claiming exists, the second thing is something you apparently understand is nonsense.

Explain what exactly the difference is, or you are admitting to everyone here that you can't answer such an essential and fundamental question.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2017,21:31   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Oct. 04 2017,17:27)
What exactly is the difference between an intelligent cause, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things";  and an intelligent designer, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things"

For us to make sense of the purpose of your question you will first need to explain why you believe that this statement from the premise:
 
Quote
certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause

is exactly equal to this statement that you fabricated by switching words around:
 
Quote
intelligent cause, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things"

and this one that further moves the goalposts by changing a word to an even more religious sounding one:
 
Quote
intelligent designer, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things"


--------------
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: Oct. 04 2017,22:38   

Ah. We have arrived at the word-gaming portion of the evening.

Maybe GinGout can explain why these are not equivalent.

I'm betting he can't.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2017,23:04   

Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 04 2017,22:38)
Maybe GinGout can explain why these are not equivalent.

I don't have to. It's clear enough that they are fabrications best left to shitty philosophers to try making sense of.

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

   
k.e..



Posts: 3885
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2017,07:41   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 05 2017,07:04)
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 04 2017,22:38)
Maybe GinGout can explain why these are not equivalent.

I don't have to. It's clear enough that they are fabrications best left to shitty philosophers to try making sense of.

Sez one who smells like one.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2017,08:24   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 04 2017,21:31)
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Oct. 04 2017,17:27)
What exactly is the difference between an intelligent cause, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things";  and an intelligent designer, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things"

For us to make sense of the purpose of your question you will first need to explain why you believe that this statement from the premise:
   
Quote
certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause

is exactly equal to this statement that you fabricated by switching words around:
   
Quote
intelligent cause, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things"

Yeah, you are not weaseling out of this this easily. I will gladly show you how to answer a question, which is surprisingly easy, if you actually know what you are talking about...(Hence why you spent your last 6 posts avoiding to give an answer)

I'll go through my sentence, and reference exactly where I got what I wrote from your dribble.

Quote
an intelligent cause, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things"


Directly taken from you.

Quote
an intelligent cause, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things"


You contrast your "intelligent cause" with an "undirected process such as natural selection". This implies that the intelligent cause is directed towards the goal of achieving those undefined feature, as opposed to an undirected process, such as natural selection. You never bothered to define HOW the intelligent cause is doing that, so I left it at "directing efforts towards", which is vague enough to encompass whatever you would like to fill in there. The "purposeful" is by definition necessarily correct. You can't have a directed process by an intelligence that is NOT on purpose, if it was just an accidental effect it would not be directed.

Quote
an intelligent cause, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things"


Again, directly taken from your gibberish, to describe what it is the intelligence is causing.



As for the other part, with the "designer":
THIS is what you are supposed to differentiate from your intelligent cause! That is the question! This has literally no connection to moving the goalposts! It's like you use words you hear randomly, to try and sound smarter!

Well then, now that we got that out of the way, I repeat the question for the fifth time:

What exactly is the difference between an intelligent cause, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things"; and an intelligent designer, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things". Where do intelligent cause and intelligent designer differ?

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2592
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2017,09:05   

Maybe he's hoping "cause" is small enough to fit through the classroom door.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4788
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2017,11:57   

Why? Cause!

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1503
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2017,16:10   

I think we can all agree that Gaulin's version of ID has neither an intelligent cause nor an intelligent designer.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4788
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2017,19:17   

Well, it's not as if he'd confuse how a program works with how biological intelligence works, or either of those with the origin of biological intelligence, or RAM with CPU...

Oh wait...

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 457
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2017,09:17   

Quote
Maybe GinGout can explain why these are not equivalent.

I'm betting he can't.


Quote
I don't have to. It's clear enough that they are fabrications best left to shitty philosophers to try making sense of.


Well done, got it in one, fnxtr!

So ID, "cause" and "Designer" are fabrications. Thanks for the clarity for once, Gaulin.

  
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2017,10:45   

Did we finally get Gary to admit defeat and shut up about his pseudo-science woo-woo? Was that really all it took? Not letting him weasel out of a basic question he can't answer?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4788
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2017,13:22   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Oct. 07 2017,09:45)
Did we finally get Gary to admit defeat and shut up about his pseudo-science woo-woo? Was that really all it took? Not letting him weasel out of a basic question he can't answer?

Don't worry; it won't last.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 457
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2017,15:18   

Quote
Did we finally get Gary to admit defeat and shut up about his pseudo-science woo-woo? Was that really all it took? Not letting him weasel out of a basic question he can't answer?


Cue crappy music video in Five..Four.. Three...

  
JohnW



Posts: 2834
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2017,17:41   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 07 2017,11:22)
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Oct. 07 2017,09:45)
Did we finally get Gary to admit defeat and shut up about his pseudo-science woo-woo? Was that really all it took? Not letting him weasel out of a basic question he can't answer?

Don't worry; it won't last.

It never has before.  He's probably off ignoring criticism on some other site.

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

  
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2017,18:18   

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 07 2017,17:41)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 07 2017,11:22)
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Oct. 07 2017,09:45)
Did we finally get Gary to admit defeat and shut up about his pseudo-science woo-woo? Was that really all it took? Not letting him weasel out of a basic question he can't answer?

Don't worry; it won't last.

It never has before.  He's probably off ignoring criticism on some other site.

I don't know. We managed to get Gary away from reddit, when he began spreading his anti-scientific rubbish there. And it was exactly the same thing that caused him to absolutely panic and crawl back under his rock: Pressing easy to understand, fundamental questions, which he can't answer. (As long as they are basic enough that even Gary understands, that being unable to answer them destroys his delusional "theory".)

  
JohnW



Posts: 2834
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2017,22:35   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Oct. 08 2017,16:18)
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 07 2017,17:41)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 07 2017,11:22)
 
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Oct. 07 2017,09:45)
Did we finally get Gary to admit defeat and shut up about his pseudo-science woo-woo? Was that really all it took? Not letting him weasel out of a basic question he can't answer?

Don't worry; it won't last.

It never has before.  He's probably off ignoring criticism on some other site.

I don't know. We managed to get Gary away from reddit, when he began spreading his anti-scientific rubbish there. And it was exactly the same thing that caused him to absolutely panic and crawl back under his rock: Pressing easy to understand, fundamental questions, which he can't answer. (As long as they are basic enough that even Gary understands, that being unable to answer them destroys his delusional "theory".)

He's been here for almost five years.  He'll perform the occasional dramatic flounce, but he always come back.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2017,01:07   

Study Material:

My Experience With Spiritual Psychosis
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFq3TGa2Q9c

Is Perception a ‘Controlled Hallucination’?
www.bigquestionsonline.com/2017/09/06/perception-controlled-hallucination/

--------------
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: Oct. 11 2017,08:51   

Quote
My Experience With Spiritual Psychosis
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFq3TGa2Q9c


You shouldn't self-diagnose, Gaulin. Seek professional help for your psychosis.

Quote
Is Perception a ‘Controlled Hallucination’?
www.bigquestionsonline.com/2017/09/06/perception-controlled-hallucination/


Excellent article but it has nothing at all to do with your "theory" or "model". Totally irrelevant, completely, utterly and decisively nothing to do with your bullshit.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1772
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2017,09:48   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 11 2017,08:51)
Quote
My Experience With Spiritual Psychosis
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFq3TGa2Q9c


You shouldn't self-diagnose, Gaulin. Seek professional help for your psychosis.

 
Quote
Is Perception a ‘Controlled Hallucination’?
www.bigquestionsonline.com/2017/09/06/perception-controlled-hallucination/


Excellent article but it has nothing at all to do with your "theory" or "model". Totally irrelevant, completely, utterly and decisively nothing to do with your bullshit.

Yes, but here's a music video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....tm1jhL4

  
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2017,11:03   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 11 2017,01:07)
Study Material:

My Experience With Spiritual Psychosis
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFq3TGa2Q9c

Is Perception a ‘Controlled Hallucination’?
www.bigquestionsonline.com/2017/09/06/perception-controlled-hallucination/

Holy crap, Gary, are you finally realizing that you need mental help? I'm no professional, so I won't say that you what you have is a "spiritual psychosis", you should seek a psychiatrist's opinion and go from there. (Though I must say it fits some of your symptoms, but not all, so don't jump to conclusions on your own.)

I have ripped on you for your anti-science stance in the past, but now I can say that I fully support you and genuinely wish you can get the help you need. Remember, there is truly no shame in it, it's not any more your fault than getting the flu.

I'm gonna put asking you to answer my question on hold, since this might become a moot point, if you do get better.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1503
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2017,16:44   

I worry about the psychiatrist, though.  Yes they could live well off the sheer volume of billable hours, but they'd have to endure the diagram at least once a week.

--------------
"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: Oct. 11 2017,17:35   

Wesley is in the ID (fake) news!

evolutionnews.org/2017/10/how-notable-do-you-really-have-to-be-to-merit-a-wikipedia-entry/
     
Quote
I experimented by searching for names of random ID critics. Some you’d expect to be featured – Jerry Coyne or Kenneth Miller, for instance. Fine. But a team of bloggers for the now moribund site Panda’s Thumb? Yes, they are there including such luminaries as Wesley R. Elsberry. Read his entry and tell me, honestly, if you think he’s more “notable” than Günter Bechly? It indicates that Elsberry is a marine biologist, but his LinkedIn biography seems to have been updated more recently. It gives him as being currently employed as a programmer for a company offering “property management software solutions.” I suppose that’s notable if you’re a property manager.


And in case anyone was wondering where my latest tangent came from I owe it all to Denyse O'Leary, who had a crazy sounding yet fantastic idea:

uncommondescent.com/religion/silicon-valley-religion-the-final-end-of-science-is-the-revelation-of-the-absurd/    
Quote
Naturalists will believe in anything except reason, free will, or reality. One thing naturalist cults can probably count on is lots of free publicity from former mainstream media. The story practically writes itself, right?: Nerd programs computer to pray… is just the beginning.


The "Eureka!" moment was such an eye-opener that I had to seek professional help. Here is what neuroscientists had to say about it:

www.reddit.com/r/neuro/comments/75m0yi/is_perception_a_controlled_hallucination/

All we are now learning about how we work is more than meeting my expectations for unfathomable changes to human civilization being caused by what is best explained by a technological singularity.

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

   
k.e..



Posts: 3885
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2017,08:17   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 12 2017,00:44)
I worry about the psychiatrist, though.  Yes they could live well off the sheer volume of billable hours, but they'd have to endure the diagram at least once a week.

And the music videos. Whoever takes on Gary's case would need to inoculated for Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

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

Pages: (608) < ... 599 600 601 602 603 [604] 605 606 607 608 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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