RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (614) < ... 606 607 608 609 610 [611] 612 613 614 >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2018,23:20   

Quote (ChemiCat @ April 05 2018,18:37)
   
Quote
You're going to need the first 5 or so of these pertaining to things such as each tiny cortical column likely being able to on their own identify whole objects, not a step by step hierarchy involving multiple parts of the brain. At 7 minutes into #5 is a discussion of the purpose of brain waves not yet known and a need for (one way or another) evidence:

The Neuroscience behind HTM Sensorimotor Inference (Part 1)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNc73-tHHgY

Now that you have the background information:

discourse.numenta.org/t/oscillatory-thousand-brains-minds-eye-for-htm/3726

Our models/theory being this similar made it easy for me to trust the opinion of the Numenta team. They have the ability to repeat my results, Jeff likes to write papers and at least Matt had some prior knowledge.

What I needed to say became most like a routine "theory of operation" using terminology found in theirs for the HTM model. This at least spares a journal from having to find someone who can make full sense of it and are willing to review what I have so far. I guess we have to stay tuned, for more.

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


No, no idea what this means, if it has a meaning at all.


In just the past year much progress has been made understanding the remarkable cellular details of the (not left up to the imagination) intelligent cause of all living things.

This means "back to school" time for all who thought they knew what was going on in computational neuroscience. The first five of the videos makes the learning process as painless as possible. They're not overly lengthy.

You're of course just a pain in the ass troll, I perhaps should not feed. But you go well with a video chat I minutes after getting home from work found out about by email and was expecting just to watch, where a link to "Join" ended up with at least the ID Lab critter popping in at the one minute mark. The video (that was later available on YouTube) ended with Matt's opinion of us:

HTM Hackers' Hangout - Apr 6 2018
www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_UcQzt4Ud8&feature=youtu.be

That was almost as good as the surprise from my AI radio Mister DJ project that unexpectedly got me in trouble with the FCC. But this time I am not "in trouble" for anything, so I'm maybe getting better at preventing the worse case scenario unintended consequences of my experiments from happening.

In this case, for all of us including myself, it's a wrath of "science" thing where the worse imaginable blunder was to properly propose a "scientific theory" to explain how "intelligent cause" works while believing it's OK for a theory to explain nothing and instead use that to conduct a mean spirited and religious crusade. Neuroscientifically it's turning out as though the people who would have us back in torture chambers for not believing as their religious imagination commands is in the personality variations of society and mixing that with large doses of perceived deity granted superiority over others creates monsters.

Wesley and others can at least be thankful they are not involved in what after the shooting at YouTube and flood of irresponsible content that takes advantage of those who are easily misled by one thing or another is becoming a public mental health issue. Those being misrepresented have rights too. Freedom of speech is not an excuse for misinforming the public.

What I have is something else that cannot go down with them, so on the way to the proverbial "rock bottom" of what checks out as religious addiction based denial it's like either cling to the only thing left floating or sink for good into oblivion. And for you ChemiCat you'll just remain a clueless troll, but will likely take pride in that. Too bad it's not yet possible to model your weird mind. I would also love to see what causes a condition such as yours.

--------------
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: 497
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2018,01:47   

Quote
What I have is something else that cannot go down with them, so on the way to the proverbial "rock bottom" of what checks out as religious addiction based denial it's like either cling to the only thing left floating or sink for good into oblivion. And for you ChemiCat you'll just remain a clueless troll, but will likely take pride in that. Too bad it's not yet possible to model your weird mind. I would also love to see what causes a condition such as yours.


What causes my "condition", pseudoscientist Gaulin, is the way religiously motivated idiots like you try and distort science to squeeze your idea of god into our school science classes. This is because your god-addled brain is unable to grasp the fact that science cannot investigate your god by any logical, reasoned approach. If you ever (not holding my breath) provide anything to support your mythical "intelligent cause" then we might start to consider to think about your crazy "theory".

Godbots such as yourself have nothing but presuppositions to support your mindless bullshit.

Where is your testable, empirical evidence of your "designer"? You haven't any, none at all. Where is the testable, empirical evidence of your ridiculous "molecular intelligence"? You haven't any, none at all.

All you are is an irritating little flea riding on the back of the scientists who are improving our knowledge and understanding of the world and universe in which we exist. You and similar godbots would drag us back into the pre-enlightenment time when the churches controlled people with violence and death.

Your English is execrable, your "science" is nothing but plagiarism, your bullshit is an offence to bulls and you are incapable of nothing more than a poor copy of Pacman.

If you ever realise what a pile of shit your "intelligent cause" tagline is you will see why I will keep calling you out as an idiot.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1796
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2018,21:37   

Quote
What I needed to say became most like a routine "theory of operation" using terminology found in theirs for the HTM model.  

So you are still clueless about theories of operation (as well as scientific theories), and the need to define (and use) your terminology in ways that are valid.  You are welcome to redefine old terms in ways that are useful to you, but the redefinitions have to make sense and not be inherently self-contradictory, and you cannot just use standard terminology in nonstandard ways without properly justifying what you are doing.

 
Quote
In this case, for all of us including myself, it's a wrath of "science" thing where the worse imaginable blunder was to properly propose a "scientific theory" to explain how "intelligent cause" works  
 
You have yet to propose any theory properly.  Just calling something a theory does not make it one.  

You have not yet defined "intelligent cause" in a way that we can follow what you are talking about, that demonstrates to anyone that you have adequate understanding of what you are talking about, and that demonstrates that your major assertions have any connection to reality.

 
Quote
while believing it's OK for a theory to explain nothing and instead use that to conduct a mean spirited and religious crusade.
 You keep complaining about natural selection, but you have yet to show that you understand anything about it at all.  It is well documented and explains lots of biological phenomena.  Your failure to be conversant with the evidence and to understand the terminology and the arguments is not the fault of evolutionary biology, but of your boundless ignorance concerning just about everything in the field.

The fact that you have chosen to try to resurrect the completely failed field of intelligent design by applying it inappropriately to your own ideas puts you in bed with the god-botherers and would-be theocrats, rather than the people who critique you.  Even worse, your assertions abuse the concept of intelligence and, according to your own words, supposedly revolve around emergence and supposed self-similarity, so they are actually antithetical to origination by design.  Beyond that, you also mangle the concept of self-similarity.

Your logic in applying the "intelligent design" label to your ideas is about as flawed as someone pushing for a supposedly newer and better version of national health care and deciding to sell it as Nazism.

 
Quote
Freedom of speech is not an excuse for misinforming the public.
 Yes.  So why do you insist on misinforming the public?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2018,01:31   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 08 2018,21:37)
So you are still clueless about theories of operation (as well as scientific theories), and the need to define (and use) your terminology in ways that are valid.....................  

You appear to have missed my having no problem at all using "terminology in ways that are valid" or are just asking for it because you want to make sure I mention this science changing discussion and link for the now online ID Lab-7 from your forum from hell:

discourse.numenta.org/t/oscillatory-thousand-brains-minds-eye-for-htm/3726/4?u=gary_gaulin

The earlier mentioned videos indicate their forum already has "the theory" in mind from themselves discovering how intelligent each cell actually is. What I just presented is a model where what is happening in it is what to look for also happening at the cellular and genetic level. They are already so on the same path it would only slow everyone down for me to muck things up with ID politics, or useless definition for "theory" that requires forming a grand scientific authority to outlaw people from doing that all the time anyhow, regardless of what you believe. All are best to use common sense and judge any theory pertaining to intelligence by how well it does in a forum exclusively for explaining theory for how our intelligence works and they genuinely need the kind of insight a new one should provide.

My best computational model ever is now online, in a forum best able to understand it in great detail. I can't imagine how to better present what I have for a model/theory pertaining to the multicellular level intelligence to "peers". With the systematics of the other levels expected to be similar it's where the journey most begins, and we have only just begun.

--------------
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: 1796
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2018,11:39   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 09 2018,01:31)
Quote (N.Wells @ April 08 2018,21:37)
So you are still clueless about theories of operation (as well as scientific theories), and the need to define (and use) your terminology in ways that are valid.....................  

You appear to have missed my having no problem at all using "terminology in ways that are valid"

..........

They are already so on the same path it would only slow everyone down for me to muck things up with ID politics, or useless definition for "theory" that requires forming a grand scientific authority to outlaw people from doing that all the time anyhow, regardless of what you believe. All are best to use common sense and judge any theory pertaining to intelligence by how well it does in a forum exclusively for explaining theory for how our intelligence works and they genuinely need the kind of insight a new one should provide.

My best computational model ever is now online, in a forum best able to understand it in great detail. I can't imagine how to better present what I have for a model/theory pertaining to the multicellular level intelligence to "peers". With the systematics of the other levels expected to be similar it's where the journey most begins, and we have only just begun.

I was in fact responding to your assertion about using "terminology in ways that are valid".  You do not see your problems but you are still using most or all of your key terms in ways that are severely problematic: design, intelligence, natural selection, emergence, self-similarity, hippocampus, and so on.

You are welcome to present your apparently useless ideas however you want, but you shouldn't call it a theory when it doesn't qualify as one.

You have yet to demonstrate that molecular and cellular intelligence exist, and you have yet to show how to identify them and measure them.  You haven't even defined them in a way that other people can follow.  You merely assert them, which is one of multiple reasons that your assertions do not rise to the level of a scientific theory.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 497
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2018,14:36   

Quote
You have yet to demonstrate that molecular and cellular intelligence exist, and you have yet to show how to identify them and measure them.  You haven't even defined them in a way that other people can follow.  You merely assert them, which is one of multiple reasons that your assertions do not rise to the level of a scientific theory.


Well said, N.Wells. However Gaulin has been told this countless times and still doesn't understand it. Nor will he until he gets some scientific education for himself. All he does is cherry-pick words and phrases he thinks support him out of the work of serious scientists and add them to his pile of rubbish. He doesn't understand context, he doesn't understand the scientific method, he doesn't understand the concept of evidence and does not have the intellect to comprehend any of these points.

And all his stuff is written in his incomprehensible English that would shame a 5th grader. He knows that he cannot submit it to peer review because it will be returned as unreadable. Of course, he also believes that peer review consists of someone replying to him on obscure websites.

As far as I know nobody has taken him seriously anywhere on the web nor have they bothered to investigate his claims and assertions. This is because there is nothing to investigate but baseless, erroneous statements in his (There must be another word we can use for 'theory' as bullshit is getting old now) meaningless screed.

It is time Gaulin grew a pair and admitted that his speculations are just that, speculations.

  
k.e..



Posts: 4517
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2018,20:26   

Quote (ChemiCat @ April 09 2018,22:36)
Quote
You have yet to demonstrate that molecular and cellular intelligence exist, and you have yet to show how to identify them and measure them.  You haven't even defined them in a way that other people can follow.  You merely assert them, which is one of multiple reasons that your assertions do not rise to the level of a scientific theory.


Well said, N.Wells. However Gaulin has been told this countless times and still doesn't understand it. Nor will he until he gets some scientific education for himself. All he does is cherry-pick words and phrases he thinks support him out of the work of serious scientists and add them to his pile of rubbish. He doesn't understand context, he doesn't understand the scientific method, he doesn't understand the concept of evidence and does not have the intellect to comprehend any of these points.

And all his stuff is written in his incomprehensible English that would shame a 5th grader. He knows that he cannot submit it to peer review because it will be returned as unreadable. Of course, he also believes that peer review consists of someone replying to him on obscure websites.

As far as I know nobody has taken him seriously anywhere on the web nor have they bothered to investigate his claims and assertions. This is because there is nothing to investigate but baseless, erroneous statements in his (There must be another word we can use for 'theory' as bullshit is getting old now) meaningless screed.

It is time Gaulin grew a pair and admitted that his speculations are just that, speculations.

But...but...but...he has only just begun...

Quote
With the systematics of the other levels expected to be similar it's where the journey most begins, and we have only just begun.


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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4973
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2018,21:26   

Re "But...but...but...he has only just begun..."

In thee beginning their was...

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1091
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2018,22:12   

Quote
With the systematics of the other levels expected to be similar it's where the journey most begins, and we have only just begun.


He has not yet begun to do science...

And that's not about to change!

Glen Davidson

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

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

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 497
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2018,14:22   

Quote
In thee beginning their was...


That's in better English than Gaulin will ever achieve!

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2018,17:35   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 09 2018,11:39)
I was in fact responding to your assertion about using "terminology in ways that are valid".  You do not see your problems but you are still using most or all of your key terms in ways that are severely problematic: design, intelligence, natural selection, emergence, self-similarity, hippocampus, and so on.

I have an idea!

Define each of the words as you see fit, then I'll provide a Wikipedia link for what each one actually means.

--------------
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: 5298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2018,17:55   

Quote (CeilingCat @ April 09 2018,01:09)
David Gerson, George W. Bush's former head speechwriter, has written a devastating article for the current (April 2018) issue of The Atlantic.  

Gerson is an Evangelical, a  graduate of Wheaton College (the Harvard of Evangelicalism) and ar least ten times smarter and better educated than anybody at Uncommon Descent.  His article is titled The Last Temptation and it's subtitled "How evangelicals, once culturally confident, became an anxious minority seeking political protection from the least traditionally religious president in living memory".  To put it mildly, it's devastating.

"The president won four-fifths of the votes of white evangelical Christians. This was a higher level of support than either Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, an outspoken evangelical himself, ever received.

Trump’s background and beliefs could hardly be more incompatible with traditional Christian models of life and leadership. Trump’s past political stances (he once supported the right to partial-birth abortion), his character (he has bragged about sexually assaulting women), and even his language (he introduced the words pussy and shithole into presidential discourse) would more naturally lead religious conservatives toward exorcism than alliance. This is a man who has cruelly publicized his infidelities, made disturbing sexual comments about his elder daughter, and boasted about the size of his penis on the debate stage. His lawyer reportedly arranged a $130,000 payment to a porn star to dissuade her from disclosing an alleged affair. Yet religious conservatives who once blanched at PG-13 public standards now yawn at such NC-17 maneuvers. We are a long way from The Book of Virtues.

Trump supporters tend to dismiss moral scruples about his behavior as squeamishness over the president’s “style.” But the problem is the distinctly non-Christian substance of his values. Trump’s unapologetic materialism—his equation of financial and social success with human achievement and worth—is a negation of Christian teaching. His tribalism and hatred for “the other” stand in direct opposition to Jesus’s radical ethic of neighbor love. Trump’s strength-worship and contempt for “losers” smack more of Nietzsche than of Christ. Blessed are the proud. Blessed are the ruthless. Blessed are the shameless. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after fame."

It gets better from there.  You absolutely want to read that article!

Worst of all, from ID and UD's perspective, Gerson traces the present day  moral debasement of Evangelicalism to its century and a half long, thoroughly dishonest rejection of modernism and evolution!

Denyse has a post up about this article, But the Big Cool cannot talk about evolution as if reality mattered, where she quotes David Klinghoffer's ("a good and smart person") "response" to Gerson and then she adds her own absolutely typical "reply":      
Quote
But I wish he and a bunch of other people would get this part of the story right: A Big Cool Person should not know facts.

That would imply that The Big Cool inhabit the same world as the rest of us do. We could have a serious discussion about the strength and weaknesses of current evolution theory.

Admit that and Big Cool is dead.

It always depended on an alternative version of reality.

See also: Why Hollywood is losing ground.


A perfect Denyse-style name-calling non-answer.

I think someday we'll look back on the election of Donald Trump as the day Conservatism and especially conservative religion linked arms and collectively jumped the shark.  Assuming we survive it to look back, anyway.

Very nice article.

The Discovery Institute and Uncommon Descent are working towards their court-ordered psychological evaluation.

--------------
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: 5298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2018,23:17   

And this is a fascinating way to admit that the DI's promised "theory of intelligent design" is no longer even on their agenda:
   
Quote
You really must read the whole thing, but this is the heart of it.        
Quote

We do not only believe in intelligent design in the universe; we believe such a design manifests itself across the sciences and pervades economics and culture. Not only is God the creator; but human beings are creative in his image, in the image of the creator. This is a scientific proposition, following the insights of a great new science called information theory. Information theory upholds the idea of a hierarchical universe and underlies all the programs at Discovery.

evolutionnews.org/2018/04/study-the-vision-of-george-gilder-in-a-seminar-setting-july-26-29-in-seattle/

To show where the DI is thus at right now with their "scientific theory" I only have to switch the theory that now "underlies all the programs at Discovery" with the theory that is embedded in their ~20 year old bait premise (I made my sig line) which then reads:

Information theory 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.

I must take such a clear change in direction as a making sure I and others know that the bait's all mine/ours now. Information theory is never mentioned in anything I write including the virtual critter that needs brain waves anyway. Waves even rule the physics of the universe.

Getting lost in complicated math that does not explain how anything "intelligent" at all works is a road to nowhere, which is why theory I write does not ever go there. Progress is made by developing computational models that are useful to researchers for explaining the biggest of questions regarding how biological (and secondarily other possible forms from it such as digital machine) intelligence works.

In regards to understanding how our own mind works: from a perspective of each brain cell being way more intelligent (designer) than "scientists" ever imagined the progress made last weekend was a Stand By You moment even though it was for me explaining how something I have been experimenting with works, and some programming.

When scientific theory is real "science knows no religion" in a way that makes better understanding ourselves and reasons for all the "complexity" inside us is an exciting "for all" change to be proud of and thankful for, instead of embarrassing let down. Faith is there a helping to reason, where church choirs still go just fine. I was long ago the young star of a Methodist one, and all I can say is carry on. The more we have to reason from the better.

--------------
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: 55
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2018,13:30   

Quote
I can't imagine how to better present what I have for a model/theory pertaining to the multicellular level intelligence to "peers".


You can't imagine a better way to present your nonsense/woowoo to "peers", huh? Oh, if only there were a standardized process for reviewing someone's ideas by some peers from the appropriate fields. Maybe we could add strict regulations, to ensure errors can be corrected through this process, and scientific rigour is upheld as much as possible. That kind of review-process would possibly even be better than posting on a random blog/internet forum! Someone should try to implement something like that, would really help science out!

(...He's not gonna get it, is he?)

Quote
In regards to understanding how our own mind works: from a perspective of each brain cell being way more intelligent (designer) than "scientists" ever imagined the progress made last weekend was a Stand By You moment even though it was for me explaining how something I have been experimenting with works, and some programming.


Ohh, so much cringe. I am embarassed for you Gary, since you seem to be entirely incapable of enough self-reflection to see how pathetic you are. Get help!



Quote
The Discovery Institute and Uncommon Descent are working towards their court-ordered psychological evaluation.


I would like to point out that the discovery institute is one of the only citations you have in your nonsense pdf. And not in a way to refute it, or contrast it, no as the very foundation to your own woo-woo. Which is not surprising, because it's religiously inspired woo-woo. It started as mainstream creationism (I can still link you to reddit discussion, where you try to argue Casey Luskin, famous member of the DI, was right in his anti-scientific assertions), then somewhere along the way, your addled brain decided to arbitrarily reject the Discovery Institute, but refused to accept that this meant rejecting your whole pseudoscience, which was born from it. So you changed literally nothing about it, but pretended that it somehow was completely different...

Also, this:

"If you say that the Discovery Institute is talking about "God" then so am I. The only difference is they have a policy to leave how God works up to the imagination, I don't. " -Gary Gaulin, Jan. 25 2017

Now you have a bunch of nonsense, the content or message of which you yourself can't even summarize or explain to anyone, because it is so inherently inconsistent and nonsensical.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1796
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2018,17:00   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 10 2018,17:35)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ April 09 2018,11:39)
I was in fact responding to your assertion about using "terminology in ways that are valid".  You do not see your problems but you are still using most or all of your key terms in ways that are severely problematic: design, intelligence, natural selection, emergence, self-similarity, hippocampus, and so on.

I have an idea!

Define each of the words as you see fit, then I'll provide a Wikipedia link for what each one actually means.

I have an even better idea - do your own damn work.  

You are the person responsible for redefining your terms adequately or using them properly.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2018,07:12   

God – Behavior of matter/energy process that exists throughout the universe and creates (life) living things, our “creator”.

--------------
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: 1605
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2018,16:07   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 12 2018,07:12)
God – Behavior of matter/energy process that exists throughout the universe and creates (life) living things, our “creator”.

Bullshitter: Someone who lies or exaggerates a lot, especially in order to get noticed.  Gary Gaulin.

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

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 497
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2018,16:44   

Quote
God – Behavior of matter/energy process that exists throughout the universe and creates (life) living things, our “creator”.


Non-scientist: Someone who swamps the internet with make believe and calls it a theory.  Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2018,16:55   

Quote (Texas Teach @ April 12 2018,16:07)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 12 2018,07:12)
God – Behavior of matter/energy process that exists throughout the universe and creates (life) living things, our “creator”.

Bullshitter: Someone who lies or exaggerates a lot, especially in order to get noticed.  Gary Gaulin.

Are you suggesting that I have to allow you to define how I personally define "God"?

--------------
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: 1605
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2018,17:22   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 12 2018,16:55)
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 12 2018,16:07)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 12 2018,07:12)
God – Behavior of matter/energy process that exists throughout the universe and creates (life) living things, our “creator”.

Bullshitter: Someone who lies or exaggerates a lot, especially in order to get noticed.  Gary Gaulin.

Are you suggesting that I have to allow you to define how I personally define "God"?

Are you suggesting I can’t call that bullshit?

--------------
"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: 5298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2018,17:35   

Quote (Texas Teach @ April 12 2018,17:22)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 12 2018,16:55)
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 12 2018,16:07)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 12 2018,07:12)
God – Behavior of matter/energy process that exists throughout the universe and creates (life) living things, our “creator”.

Bullshitter: Someone who lies or exaggerates a lot, especially in order to get noticed.  Gary Gaulin.

Are you suggesting that I have to allow you to define how I personally define "God"?

Are you suggesting I can’t call that bullshit?

You can call it anything you like but your definition for God is irrelevant.

--------------
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: 1605
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2018,17:59   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 12 2018,17:35)
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 12 2018,17:22)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 12 2018,16:55)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 12 2018,16:07)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 12 2018,07:12)
God – Behavior of matter/energy process that exists throughout the universe and creates (life) living things, our “creator”.

Bullshitter: Someone who lies or exaggerates a lot, especially in order to get noticed.  Gary Gaulin.

Are you suggesting that I have to allow you to define how I personally define "God"?

Are you suggesting I can’t call that bullshit?

You can call it anything you like but your definition for God is irrelevant.

Bingo.  QED.

--------------
"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: 5298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2018,18:48   

Quote (Texas Teach @ April 12 2018,17:59)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 12 2018,17:35)
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 12 2018,17:22)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 12 2018,16:55)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 12 2018,16:07)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 12 2018,07:12)
God – Behavior of matter/energy process that exists throughout the universe and creates (life) living things, our “creator”.

Bullshitter: Someone who lies or exaggerates a lot, especially in order to get noticed.  Gary Gaulin.

Are you suggesting that I have to allow you to define how I personally define "God"?

Are you suggesting I can’t call that bullshit?

You can call it anything you like but your definition for God is irrelevant.

Bingo.  QED.

Please explain what "QED" has to do with anything.

It sounds to me like you are trying to look smart by acting stupid.

--------------
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: 1605
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2018,19:07   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 12 2018,18:48)
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 12 2018,17:59)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 12 2018,17:35)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 12 2018,17:22)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 12 2018,16:55)
   
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 12 2018,16:07)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 12 2018,07:12)
God – Behavior of matter/energy process that exists throughout the universe and creates (life) living things, our “creator”.

Bullshitter: Someone who lies or exaggerates a lot, especially in order to get noticed.  Gary Gaulin.

Are you suggesting that I have to allow you to define how I personally define "God"?

Are you suggesting I can’t call that bullshit?

You can call it anything you like but your definition for God is irrelevant.

Bingo.  QED.

Please explain what "QED" has to do with anything.

It sounds to me like you are trying to look smart by acting stupid.

Oh, Gary, you simple simple man.  My point is that you proved my point that your definition of God is irrelevant.  No one gives a flying rat’s ass about your God.  We’ve been saying so for years.

--------------
"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: 5298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2018,19:42   

Quote (Texas Teach @ April 12 2018,19:07)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 12 2018,18:48)
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 12 2018,17:59)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 12 2018,17:35)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 12 2018,17:22)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 12 2018,16:55)
   
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 12 2018,16:07)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 12 2018,07:12)
God – Behavior of matter/energy process that exists throughout the universe and creates (life) living things, our “creator”.

Bullshitter: Someone who lies or exaggerates a lot, especially in order to get noticed.  Gary Gaulin.

Are you suggesting that I have to allow you to define how I personally define "God"?

Are you suggesting I can’t call that bullshit?

You can call it anything you like but your definition for God is irrelevant.

Bingo.  QED.

Please explain what "QED" has to do with anything.

It sounds to me like you are trying to look smart by acting stupid.

Oh, Gary, you simple simple man.  My point is that you proved my point that your definition of God is irrelevant.  No one gives a flying rat’s ass about your God.  We’ve been saying so for years.

If "No one gives a flying rat’s ass about your God." then I would not have just been prodded for it. You really are just acting stupid.

--------------
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: 1796
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2018,19:49   

Quote
God – Behavior of matter/energy process that exists throughout the universe and creates (life) living things, our “creator”.

 
Quote
You can call it anything you like but your definition for God is irrelevant.


Now that is absolutely classic, in all manner of ways.

First, it is your discussion, so yes, it is indeed fundamentally your prerogative to redefine terms if you feel it is necessary.

However, secondly, that aside, you have gone for a completely eclectic redefinition of god that almost nobody else will agree with, thereby ensuring maximum rejection of your views.  

Thirdly, putting that aside as well, you haven't provided any actual independent evidence for an entirely suspect set of claims that therefore devolve into unsupported assertions.  (No ground-truthing, and no theory of operation, although to be fair all of religion suffers the same short-comings.)

Fourth, and not for the first time, your counterattack is more of an "own-goal" in terms of illustrating the weaknesses in your own position.

It turns out that your relation to god is remarkably similar to your relation to science, theory, and intelligence: a miasma of confusion and misunderstanding cloaked in bad writing.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2018,21:04   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 12 2018,19:49)
However, secondly, that aside, you have gone for a completely eclectic redefinition of god that almost nobody else will agree with, thereby ensuring maximum rejection of your views.  

It's my (unpaid) job to find definitions that are compatible with testable models from biological evidence, and I don't mind hard challenges.

What matters is that it's not out of bounds of science. That's why I have said if it were not for science then I would have no religion.

--------------
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: 1796
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2018,23:32   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 12 2018,21:04)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ April 12 2018,19:49)
However, secondly, that aside, you have gone for a completely eclectic redefinition of god that almost nobody else will agree with, thereby ensuring maximum rejection of your views.  

It's my (unpaid) job to find definitions that are compatible with testable models from biological evidence, and I don't mind hard challenges.

What matters is that it's not out of bounds of science. That's why I have said if it were not for science then I would have no religion.

Darn right you're not paid.  No one pays willingly for complete crap unless they are trying to fertilize a garden.

It is indeed the job of scientists to devise testable models, but you've shown that you wouldn't recognize testability if you sat on it and it bit you.  Finding ways to test ideas is, actually, not that hard a challenge, assuming that one knows what one is doing.  

What you have done so far is not yet comfortably inside the bounds of science.  For that, it needs some supporting evidence to show that what you are talking about has some connection with reality, it needs to avoid contradicting itself, it needs some comprehensibility, and it needs to demonstrate that you have correctly understood and integrated previous work in the field, or have demonstrated shortcomings in that work.  You need some supporting evidence to show that your ideas are worthy of being taken seriously.  

That you can confuse religion and science shows how completely you misunderstand science.

Edited to add: I should have added to my previous post that assuming that the behavior of matter and energy inherently creates life, why complicate things by adding in god and our creator, when that only serves to confuse and complicate the issue: the people ready to accept god have a concept entirely different from yours, and people ready to accept that life emerges from properties of matter and energy find nothing useful or clarifying in labelling chemistry and physics as "god", as we already call them chemistry and physics.  That is semantics playing at philosophy and failing to be science.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2018,11:56   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 12 2018,23:32)
Edited to add: I should have added to my previous post that assuming that the behavior of matter and energy inherently creates life, why complicate things by adding in god and our creator, when that only serves to confuse and complicate the issue: the people ready to accept god have a concept entirely different from yours, and people ready to accept that life emerges from properties of matter and energy find nothing useful or clarifying in labelling chemistry and physics as "god", as we already call them chemistry and physics.  That is semantics playing at philosophy and failing to be science.

From my experience the problem is from needing to replace a logical scientific conclusion with philosophical natuaralism that demands adherence to a beyond science to explain "supernatural" creator, instead of adherence to testable scientific theories that explain how we were in fact "created".

I'm still proud of having been at the (indirectly supported by the Discovery Institute) Alternatives to Naturalism event, where I made it known that what needs to be done is to go beyond proposing philosophical alternatives in the hopes of ultimately changing it a little and make the whole philosophical mess completely gone. It's then a matter of whether a person is able to follow testable evidence wherever it leads. This does not help belief reason is against, such as new species coming from a Santa Claus type entity that has His workshop at the like North Pole of the universe, and by unexplainable magic can periodically fly to Earth to deliver them.

My scientific method has no philosophical baggage in it, at all. But yours sure does.

There are no scientific reasons I know of for complicating things with Naturalism, only philosophical/religious ones.

--------------
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: 1796
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2018,12:54   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 14 2018,11:56)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ April 12 2018,23:32)
Edited to add: I should have added to my previous post that assuming that the behavior of matter and energy inherently creates life, why complicate things by adding in god and our creator, when that only serves to confuse and complicate the issue: the people ready to accept god have a concept entirely different from yours, and people ready to accept that life emerges from properties of matter and energy find nothing useful or clarifying in labelling chemistry and physics as "god", as we already call them chemistry and physics.  That is semantics playing at philosophy and failing to be science.

From my experience the problem is from needing to replace a logical scientific conclusion with philosophical natuaralism that demands adherence to a beyond science to explain "supernatural" creator, instead of adherence to testable scientific theories that explain how we were in fact "created".

I'm still proud of having been at the (indirectly supported by the Discovery Institute) Alternatives to Naturalism event, where I made it known that what needs to be done is to go beyond proposing philosophical alternatives in the hopes of ultimately changing it a little and make the whole philosophical mess completely gone. It's then a matter of whether a person is able to follow testable evidence wherever it leads. This does not help belief reason is against, such as new species coming from a Santa Claus type entity that has His workshop at the like North Pole of the universe, and by unexplainable magic can periodically fly to Earth to deliver them.

My scientific method has no philosophical baggage in it, at all. But yours sure does.

There are no scientific reasons I know of for complicating things with Naturalism, only philosophical/religious ones.


What a load of nonsense.

 
Quote
instead of adherence to testable scientific theories that explain how we were in fact "created".

You do not have a testable scientific theory.  Go on - propose some valid tests for your major claims, and demonstrate how they constitute actual valid tests.


 
Quote
My scientific method has no philosophical baggage in it, at all. But yours sure does.  There are no scientific reasons I know of for complicating things with Naturalism, only philosophical/religious ones.

Your "method", such as it is, is not very scientific.  Worse, you have chained yourself to intelligent design, which is very little other than emotional baggage from the desire to support religious superstitions that have been dragged along from much earlier in human civilization.  Methodological naturalism is not a complication but a pragmatically useful simplification, and it has empirically proven itself to be a more useful approach than wrapping oneself in beliefs and superstitions.

  
  18394 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (614) < ... 606 607 608 609 610 [611] 612 613 614 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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