RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (618) < ... 608 609 610 611 612 [613] 614 615 616 617 618 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
fnxtr



Posts: 2829
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2018,15:10   



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

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2829
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2018,15:10   

bumption

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5056
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2018,16:24   

Quote (fnxtr @ May 05 2018,14:10)

Wake up little sushi, wake up...

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2018,17:05   

Quote
You are again naming things with generalizations instead of using neuroscience to explain how things like (what you would name) "mate selection" works.

Natural selection is not a generalization: it is a thoroughly documented and well-understood process.  There is a huge literature on mate selection, although a lot of it relates to identifying which signals potential mates are responding to rather than the neurological details of how they respond to the signals (although chemical signals are mostly quite well understood).  However, you aren't modelling anything even vaguely related to mate selection, so you have not demonstrated that you have anything to add to the discussion beyond errors and misunderstandings.  I am fully in favor of people exploring the neuroscience aspects of mate choice, but when you start out with errors and misunderstandings, I'm inclined to conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 
Quote
Computationally modeling the "emergence of intelligence" likewise requires the appropriate scientific/engineering tools and vocabulary.
 
Yes, appropriate tools and vocabulary are indeed required.  Please use them, or provide valid redefinitions and usable operational definitions.  For example, "design" is nearly completely antithetical to "emergence" and both are nearly completely antithetical to self-similarity - you can have any one of the three, but no more than that, absent some really impressive evidence about some extremely special systems.

 
Quote
Limiting knowledge and vocabulary to Darwinian theory only helps those who prefer misleading political slogans that ignore the "intelligent cause" relevant sciences they should be scientific experts in by now.

I'm not limiting you to Darwinian theory.  I'm insisting that when you discuss or dismiss Darwinian terms that you follow standard definitions and understand what you are talking about.  Separate from that, you have yet to specify what you mean by intelligent design and demonstrate that it is relevant to what you want to talk about.  Until you do all that, you cannot even begin to think about having something that qualifies as a theory.


To Henry: Yes.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5349
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2018,03:27   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 05 2018,17:05)
     
Quote
You are again naming things with generalizations instead of using neuroscience to explain how things like (what you would name) "mate selection" works.

Natural selection is not a generalization: it is a thoroughly documented and well-understood process.

I'll look it up for you:
From: www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/natural%20selection
       
Quote
the process by which plants and animals that can adapt to changes in their environment are able to survive and reproduce while those that cannot adapt do not survive.


And I'll get all excited as though "animals that can adapt to changes in their environment are able to survive and reproduce while those that cannot adapt do not survive" is not common sense that an average intelligent person could never figure out on their own, and was discovered by Charles Darwin, whose books as you know then went viral by claiming that his discovery would be the end of religion!

The only way I know to beat that kind of hoopla is to claim that such a thing is a scientific conspiracy, when the "process" is more simply like draining a swamp to get rid of mosquitoes, while fossil evidence clearly enough recorded their origin in a way that makes what Charles Darwin said kinda redundant anyhow. If he had said nothing then the emerging sciences of that era would have later had a better chance of explaining the evidence without wherever it leads becoming a giant religious issue.

My problem concerns the lack of explanatory power regarding cognitive related phenomena. For example use Darwinian theory to explain the cognitive origin of this brilliant illusion now being discussed in another forum:

optical illusion dance
www.youtube.com/watch?v=44mw37d8LQw

     
Quote (N.Wells @ May 05 2018,17:05)
There is a huge literature on mate selection, although a lot of it relates to identifying which signals potential mates are responding to rather than the neurological details of how they respond to the signals (although chemical signals are mostly quite well understood).  However,.....................................


Everything that follows this kind of "However" was expected to be a bad excuse for why you are only able to help prove that I am correct.

   
Quote (N.Wells @ May 05 2018,17:05)
To Henry: Yes.


It also seems like you have little or no knowledge of the "Everly Brothers".

--------------
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: 5349
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2018,03:36   

Quote (Henry J @ May 05 2018,16:24)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ May 05 2018,14:10)

Wake up little sushi, wake up...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WYyXtsrL-E

--------------
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: 1825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2018,09:06   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 06 2018,03:27)
Quote (N.Wells @ May 05 2018,17:05)
     
Quote
You are again naming things with generalizations instead of using neuroscience to explain how things like (what you would name) "mate selection" works.

Natural selection is not a generalization: it is a thoroughly documented and well-understood process.

I'll look it up for you:
From: www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/natural%20selection
       
Quote
the process by which plants and animals that can adapt to changes in their environment are able to survive and reproduce while those that cannot adapt do not survive.


And I'll get all excited as though "animals that can adapt to changes in their environment are able to survive and reproduce while those that cannot adapt do not survive" is not common sense that an average intelligent person could never figure out on their own, and was discovered by Charles Darwin, whose books as you know then went viral by claiming that his discovery would be the end of religion!

The only way I know to beat that kind of hoopla is to claim that such a thing is a scientific conspiracy, when the "process" is more simply like draining a swamp to get rid of mosquitoes, while fossil evidence clearly enough recorded their origin in a way that makes what Charles Darwin said kinda redundant anyhow. If he had said nothing then the emerging sciences of that era would have later had a better chance of explaining the evidence without wherever it leads becoming a giant religious issue.

My problem concerns the lack of explanatory power regarding cognitive related phenomena. For example use Darwinian theory to explain the cognitive origin of this brilliant illusion now being discussed in another forum:

optical illusion dance
www.youtube.com/watch?v=44mw37d8LQw

     
Quote (N.Wells @ May 05 2018,17:05)
There is a huge literature on mate selection, although a lot of it relates to identifying which signals potential mates are responding to rather than the neurological details of how they respond to the signals (although chemical signals are mostly quite well understood).  However,.....................................


Everything that follows this kind of "However" was expected to be a bad excuse for why you are only able to help prove that I am correct.

     
Quote (N.Wells @ May 05 2018,17:05)
To Henry: Yes.


It also seems like you have little or no knowledge of the "Everly Brothers".

That's not a great definition of natural selection.
Natural selection is part of the process by which species become better adapted to their environment. Given inheritable phenotypic variation, natural selection leads to evolutionary change when individuals in a population with certain inheritable and variable characteristics have greater reproductive success than other individuals who have less advantageous versions of those phenotypes, due to better survival rates, greater fecundity, more success at attracting a mate, better success at raising offspring, etc.  In short, natural selection is a consistent difference in survival and reproduction ultimately due to different genotypes.

Also, evolutionary theory does not end with Charles Darwin (as one major point, Darwin did not know about genes).  Nonetheless, yes, it is fundamentally a very simple concept, and yet Darwin was the first person to put it all together with good definitions and evidence to support his argument.  

Natural selection is not expected to explain everything.  You happen to think that it cannot explain stuff in cognitive neuroscience.  You might be right or you might be wrong - make your case by supplying supporting evidence, but what you cannot do is dismiss evolutionary biology in general and natural selection in particular simply by dissing it on the basis of your ignorance about biology.  In addition, you cannot simply make unsupported assertions and call it a theory.


And good lord, optical illusions work precisely because our brains are not designed perfectly but have evolved.  One of the tasks of the brain is to process visual information - to take in visual input, to interpret it, and to decide what to do about it, as quickly as possible.  Evolution inherently results in briccolaged, "whatever works, mostly" shortcuts in order to respond to danger as quickly as possible.  However, those shortcuts inevitably make us vulnerable to errors of inference, most of which are readily predictable.  For example, one of the things that we do that gets us in trouble with one category of optical illusions is that we extend lines to infer outlines.  
Olsen Zander's works: http://blog.thibaultjanbeyer.com/wp-cont....5_o.jpg

It is also important for us to infer predators from insufficient information.  The first person who sees the predator wins and gets to have children and the last one to see it loses:
http://www.illusionspoint.com/wp-cont....ion.jpg

So our brains are really good at inferring predator shapes, even when none exist:
http://i2.esmas.com/editori....lia.jpg
https://feelthebrain.files.wordpress.com/2015....ia4.jpg

We respond to motion and to things not quite perceived: organisms have evolved to be suspicious and "jumpy".

Another thing that we do: faces are very important to us, and reading intentions in faces is really important, so we readily infer faces that do not exist (pareidolia), and see emotion where none exists:
https://1funny.com/faucet-....et-face
http://static.t13.cl/images....lia.jpg
https://www.stihi.ru/pics....276.jpg
https://bemethis.com/10-ever....look-at
https://www.pinterest.com/pin....3280472
https://rolloid.net/wp-cont....528.jpg

Not surprisingly, we infer sex and potential mating opportunities left, right, and center:
http://photos1.blogger.com/x....g
http://photos1.blogger.com/x....ree.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ey2xVv....ion.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/bjcKfR9....fR9.jpg
(minimum lines and maximum inference by the brain, courtesy of Picasso)
and of course  (.Y.)


Google Jenkins and Wiseman, Perception, 2009
Donald Hoffman, Construction of Visual Reality
https://qunki.com/23451....plained

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1648
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2018,09:27   

Did anyone else notice that in Gary World finding tons of evidence that was predicted by a hypothesis renders the hypothesis redundant?

No wonder Gary doesn’t understand science.

--------------
"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: 2829
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2018,12:05   

never mind. redundant post is redundant

--------------
"[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: 517
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2018,14:52   

Quote

Quote
the process by which plants and animals that can adapt to changes in their environment are able to survive and reproduce while those that cannot adapt do not survive.



A gross simplification of natural selection. There is no reference to differential reproduction, no phenotypic variation etc. etc. No wonder the site is called Learnersdictionary.

All you have to do now, Gaulin, is follow this quote up with an advanced textbook on genetics and population dynamics. Then you will see where you have been going wrong for the last twenty odd years.

Oh, and BTW try a chemistry primer whilst you do and see where your ridiculous "molecular intelligence" shtick is so far wrong it cannot even see wrong.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 517
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2018,15:06   

Hey! Look Gaulin! NWells not only destroys  your assertions but provides links to references as to why you are wrong. Something sorely lacking in your pseudoscience.

Quote
https://1funny.com/faucet-....et-face
http://static.t13.cl/images.....lia.jpg
https://www.stihi.ru/pics.......276.jpg
https://bemethis.com/10-ever....look-at
https://www.pinterest.com/pin........3280472
https://rolloid.net/wp-cont....528.jpg

Not surprisingly, we infer sex and potential mating opportunities left, right, and center:
http://photos1.blogger.com/x....g......g....g
http://photos1.blogger.com/x....re....ree.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ey2xVv....ion.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/bjcKfR9....fR9.jpg
(minimum lines and maximum inference by the brain, courtesy of Picasso)
and of course  (.Y.)


Google Jenkins and Wiseman, Perception, 2009
Donald Hoffman, Construction of Visual Reality
[URL=https://qunki.com/23451....plained

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5349
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2018,23:13   

Sorry for having to leave the trolls unfed for so long. It's like being stuck with pets who after a few hours of not getting attention start ripping apart the furniture and peeing on the walls.

Quote (Texas Teach @ May 06 2018,09:27)
Did anyone else notice that in Gary World finding tons of evidence that was predicted by a hypothesis renders the hypothesis redundant?


In my opinion it's unnecessary to suggest that Charles Darwin only had a hypothesis. But with his not having a flow chart and equations to (at least in the future) in that way computer model "common descent" I can accept that he only had an idea that can be tested and no testable model requiring a "theory" of operation for how his "common descent" model works.

The Discovery Institute is now in a similar situation with their hypothesis. Typical "looks designed to me" answers are not a testable model for how our intelligence could somehow be caused by another, works. There is a placeholder in the hypothesis for a "theory" but the DI still appears to be OK with no scientific theory at all, prefers to leave it empty instead.

--------------
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: 2829
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2018,23:39   

You know what opinions are like.

--------------
"[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: 517
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2018,00:03   

Quote
Sorry for having to leave the trolls unfed for so long. It's like being stuck with pets who after a few hours of not getting attention start ripping apart the furniture and peeing on the walls.


I have always thought that you were the troll, Gaulin. Then the author of 40+ pages of non-scientific garbage has the cheek to call us trolls!

It is not trollish to point out the scientific flaws with your rubbish but it is trolling to not engage with the many corrections to your supposed science. Perhaps you can start answering the many questions posed to you about the errors in your basic understanding of how science works. You know, testable evidence, falsifiable theory, ground truthing, definitions of the unusual usage of well understood scientific terms etc.etc. all of which are missing in your bullshit.

Then you can explain why your tag is lifted from the DI without attribution and then you slag them off as not doing science.

You and them both.

Unless and until you correct the many errors in your bullshit there is no way you are doing science but just demonstrating how much your religion has closed your mind.

 
Quote
In my opinion it's unnecessary to suggest that Charles Darwin only had a hypothesis. But with his not having a flow chart and equations to (at least in the future) in that way computer model "common descent" I can accept that he only had an idea that can be tested and no testable model requiring a "theory" of operation for how his "common descent" model works.


Your "opinion" is just that, your opinion. As you do not understand the basics of the theory of evolution it is worthless in assessing how strong Darwin's theory is in biology and related sciences.

Darwin not having flow charts and equations means nothing to the  viability of his theory. It still remains the most tested and robust explanation of life on the planet.

Just because you have a pretty coloured CGI "bug" does not mean your assertions amount to more than speculation. In fact what you have is useless to cognitive theories.

You have wasted years of your life and neglected your family's welfare for your obsession. Try at least to correct that error.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5349
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2018,19:46   



www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/yellow-headed-moth-named-after-donald-trump

--------------
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: 517
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2018,03:14   

Oh, that poor moth. What has it done to deserve this?

  
Henry J



Posts: 5056
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2018,09:16   

Quote (ChemiCat @ May 09 2018,02:14)
Oh, that poor moth. What has it done to deserve this?

Did it eat somebody's sweater?

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 517
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2018,10:23   

Quote
Did it eat somebody's sweater?


Not one of the clothes moths, so no. It is a Gelichiidae not Tinidae.

However it is seems appropriate that Trump has a micromoth named after him.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5349
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2018,22:03   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 09 2018,10:02)
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 09 2018,07:35)
Denyse describing ID, although that's possible not what she intended:
   
Quote
My diagnosis of a crowd of people who might vaguely remind one of  Jeremy Shapiro: Those who cannot deal with a fact base often build an elaborate drama around why it doesn’t really exist or else doesn’t mean what it means, conscripting key players into unfamiliar roles and generalizing about the rest.

Dense does have a point:

 
Quote
Don’t trust the court system you pay taxes for to decide against the continuing Darwin imposture; they have every reason to decide for it – not because it is true but because the idea that there is no design, no responsibility, and no free will makes your local tax burdens’ lives a lot easier. They can force you to support them while they do nothing of consequence.

And they may even be doing something that harms you. What if they are persecuting a local white coat who is actually developing useful treatments, but he refuses to affirm Darwinism as true? So they run him out of town.


Quite the drama, allowing her to avoid the fact base.  Making up a lie about a scientist being run out of town for refusing to affirm that "Darwinism" is true.  But she said "may."  Oh yeah, a weasel word to cover completely made-up bullshit.

I'm glad she's coming to some self-awareness.  Ha.  It's really projection without end.

Glen Davidson

May is National Metal Health month. Your second link was useful:

www.reddit.com/r/neuroscience/comments/8hgsas/question_about_physiological_versus_psychological/dysfxk7/

Thanks for the tip-off.

--------------
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: 5349
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2018,22:22   

Typo, should read - National Mental Health Month not "Metal".

And now you have a link to what I was talking about, just in case you didn't know what month it is.

--------------
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: 2829
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2018,22:46   

The jokes. They write themselves.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5349
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2018,23:20   

Quote (fnxtr @ May 10 2018,22:46)
The jokes. They write themselves.

They sure do!

But seriously National Metal Month was March.  We just missed it!

But National Metal Day is on November 11, only exactly 6 months away.

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5349
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2018,15:10   

Camp just proudly checked in, with this link that spotlights his robotics work:

www.neatorobotics.com/neatonian-spotlight/may-2018-camp-peavy/

--------------
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: 517
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2018,16:45   

Quote
Camp just proudly checked in, with this link that spotlights his robotics work:

www.neatorobotics.com/neatonian-spotlight/may-2018-camp-peavy/


So what?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5349
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2018,18:18   

Quote (ChemiCat @ May 13 2018,16:45)
 
Quote
Camp just proudly checked in, with this link that spotlights his robotics work:

www.neatorobotics.com/neatonian-spotlight/may-2018-camp-peavy/


So what?

Like it says:

 
Quote
Camp is a “robot-builder who encourages others to participate in the greatest technological revolution in history.”


I admire that attitude, and was hoping you noticed the impressive army of neato vacuum cleaning robots he commands.

With all the Roomba based ridicule in my thread I'm not sure where all that goes from here, because as you know this stuff writes itself.

--------------
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: 1825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2018,19:12   

I've always likened your stuff to Neato rather than Roomba.  Roomba is way more random in its navigation.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 517
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2018,06:19   

Quote
Like it says:


Quote
Camp is a “robot-builder who encourages others to participate in the greatest technological revolution in history.”


I admire that attitude, and was hoping you noticed the impressive army of neato vacuum cleaning robots he commands.

With all the Roomba based ridicule in my thread I'm not sure where all that goes from here, because as you know this stuff writes itself.


As I said "So what?" This has absolutely nothing to do with your pseudoscience and Pacman substitute.

It would appear that you have given up all defence of your rubbish. So why not admit it and scrap the lot?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5349
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2018,06:27   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 12 2018,17:15)
Another day, another quote-mine

Dense's false claim:

   
Quote
In short, unlocking the genome raised heck with the fabled Tree of Life. Look, it’s okay if things are a mess, as long as we admit it and confront honestly what wrong assumptions got us here and how to get out again. Or, in vulgar English: If we are in a hole, let’s stop digging and rethink.


No, as usual there's no problem with the tree of life raised by genetics, it's the twigs of life that are unsurprisingly troublesome.  The research article states:

   
Quote
In plant biology, the frequent reconstruction of large phylogenetic trees has had an immense impact on the field. Large trees have helped to resolve deep‐level relationships and resulted in the revision of classifications, including some of the most profound changes in our view of plant relationships over the past 200 years (e.g., reviewed in part by Gitzendanner et al., 2018, in this issue). Large trees have also ushered in a renaissance in the study of conservation, ecology, methods development, crop improvement, genome evolution, and much more. Building the plant tree of life has come to represent the biodiversity equivalent of the human genome project, with numerous and often unanticipated downstream outcomes.


So success, especially where deep evolution is concerned, is disastrous to the tree of life.  Typical nonsense, typical IDiot dishonesty (she's not that stupid, IMO).

Glen Davidson

From what I have seen: genetic sequencing and a greater knowledge of prehistoric conditions has made evidence much easier to piece together into lineages, trees. China and other countries are now helping. Major problems appear to be the usual public support and funding issues.

Denial misleads even the most intelligent of people. Some will even say that being a genius makes matters even worse, by only making them better at it than usual.

--------------
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: 5349
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2018,06:50   

Quote (ChemiCat @ May 14 2018,06:19)
 
Quote
Like it says:


Quote
Camp is a “robot-builder who encourages others to participate in the greatest technological revolution in history.”


I admire that attitude, and was hoping you noticed the impressive army of neato vacuum cleaning robots he commands.

With all the Roomba based ridicule in my thread I'm not sure where all that goes from here, because as you know this stuff writes itself.


As I said "So what?" This has absolutely nothing to do with your pseudoscience and Pacman substitute.

It would appear that you have given up all defence of your rubbish. So why not admit it and scrap the lot?

Too late:

discourse.numenta.org/t/intelligence-and-transfer-learning/3894/5

--------------
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: 5349
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2018,01:13   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 13 2018,19:12)
I've always likened your stuff to Neato rather than Roomba.  Roomba is way more random in its navigation.

The more I think about what you said the more it seems like you are trying to get yourself a lucritive advertising gig going with Neato Robotics.

If true then go N.Wells go! That would certainly help make the expected "weird story" even weirder.

Oh and in neuroscience news is this new evidence for what the model/theory predicts is at least somehow possible:

www.theguardian.com/science/2018/may/14/scientists-transplant-memories-between-sea-snails-via-injection

Since Darwinian theory accounts for this and more with a (still lacking better word) generalization stated like "inheritable morphological change over time" news like this is no problem at all. That though is not true for neuroscientific theories that now have to ultimately model in once unimaginable (more than generalization) specific detail that must now include both RNA and DNA networks of genetic systems. That's where science action pertaining to "intelligent cause" is happening. Neuroscience must follow the evidence into the area Darwinian theory explained from an outside view type perspective. They have entirely different tools and required vocabulary therefore one never replaces the other. For example: physics never replaced astronomy.

The future is in emerging areas of science where there are few experts, still at the ground floor and all that. In context of the "Weird Science" series requiring an obligatory Lisa: what we got is (as they say for human development) "coming of age" while DI's little junior he's still all in a rage. But did you notice he was come come coming of age too? At least in the video anyway.

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

   
  18530 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (618) < ... 608 609 610 611 612 [613] 614 615 616 617 618 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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