Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Pages: (622) < ... 488 489 490 491 492 [493] 494 495 496 497 498 ... >

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2015,17:40    Just for laughs, Gary, account for the acts required to craft a theory using nothing but your "model". Or a musical composition. Or the recognition of a melody played, transposed to a different key, at a different tempo, on a different instrument from that on which it has previously been heard. All are 'features of the universe best explained ny intelligent cause[s].' None can be encompassed by your effluent.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2015,17:48    Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 01 2015,16:46)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 01 2015,17:11) The theory already accounts for all evidence I know of that exists in all of science. wow. To be fair, he did qualify that as "all the evidence that he knows of".  We have learned that that is a remarkably low bar. Gary, much of your not-a-theory does not even make enough sense to be matched up against actual relevant scientific evidence.  One might as well try to prove or disprove that the borogoves were in fact all mimsy.  As for the rest of it, your not-a-theory fails scientifically because you can't demonstrate most of your key claims, such as molecular intelligence, and because undoubted examples of intelligence, such as Beethoven dreaming up a symphony or Stephen Hawking thinking up an equation, do not fall within your definition (so to speak, such as it is) of intelligence, while Neato vacuums do.  For those reasons (and many, many more), your not-a-theory is worthless.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2015,17:54    Hopefully readers notice that the critics only throw insults and never provide evidence to back up any of their claims, they have no evidence at all. -------------- 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.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2015,17:56    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 01 2015,15:54) Hopefully readers notice that the critics only throw insults and never provide evidence to back up any of their claims, they have no evidence at all. More projection than the Cannes Film Festival. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2015,18:00    Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 01 2015,16:46) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 01 2015,17:11) The theory already accounts for all evidence I know of that exists in all of science. wow. That's a pretty low bar. -------------- "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

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2015,18:10    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 01 2015,18:54) Hopefully readers notice that the critics only throw insults and never provide evidence to back up any of their claims, they have no evidence at all. Epic fail, Gary. All the evidence anyone needs is your complete and total inability to explain common acts best explained by intelligent cause using your 'model,' your "theory," nor your absurdist diagram.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2015,18:14    Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 01 2015,18:00) Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 01 2015,16:46) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 01 2015,17:11) The theory already accounts for all evidence I know of that exists in all of science. wow. That's a pretty low bar. Your bar never made it above ground level. And you tripped over it. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2015,18:21    All your bluster can't mask your ongoing epic fails. They're obvious to all, except perhaps you.

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2015,19:36    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 01 2015,16:11) The theory already accounts for all evidence I know of that exists in all of science. Including watching your wife as she watches squirrels in the backyard. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2015,19:50    I have been studying what Andre Fenton has more recently been writing and I found this evidence, which just happens to support the model: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi....ec-0005 Quote Overall, the frequency of “silence” was about 40%). The word "silent" was added to where it belongs in program comments: Code Sample Calculate Concordant Pairs at each Place in the Network. For a biological example see "Dynamic Grouping of Hippocampal Neural Activity During Cognitive Control of Two Spatial Frames" For the code below a "Concordant Pair" is two neighboring sectors between different places staying in time, one on other off. Both signaling at the same time or not at all makes it a "Discordant Pair" that is not staying in proper time with the other. In this model there is a "tendency for an excess of concordant cell pairs" of 60% when an information rich map is doing well. When the program is first started the up to 82% concordance indicates that an attract location exists but no map information. Much below 60% indicates that the network is having a hard time resolving useful information, it's then more often shocked. [b]What most lowers concordance are too many silent map locations (room+arena avoids) blocking the attractor location signal.[/b] At 60% is an ideal amount of map information and condant pairs for the network to solve the spatial logic problem given. Click the Vector Option "0 and 1" to see readings for both frames/cycles, "1 only" is normally the greater of the two. This cordance can be used to gauge confidence for another system that adds the cellular behavior that controls timing. Outer two places in the network are not included in the total shown on the screen, only fully active center is used. In the ID Lab-5 default cell behavior is set by the TrainBehaviorRAM subroutine below, runtime changed by Data list. If the cell level behavior were included then that system would intelligently take care of all the tweaking, for us. In biology the cell level behavior is from a millions of year old genetic level behavior system, which can be added. The Design form stands in for what would be regulated by growth hormones and other factors influencing a morphology. -------------- 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: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2015,19:52    To help find it: Quote Calculate Concordant Pairs at each Place in the Network. For a biological example see "Dynamic Grouping of Hippocampal Neural Activity During Cognitive Control of Two Spatial Frames" For the code below a "Concordant Pair" is two neighboring sectors between different places staying in time, one on other off. Both signaling at the same time or not at all makes it a "Discordant Pair" that is not staying in proper time with the other. In this model there is a "tendency for an excess of concordant cell pairs" of 60% when an information rich map is doing well. When the program is first started the up to 82% concordance indicates that an attract location exists but no map information. Much below 60% indicates that the network is having a hard time resolving useful information, it's then more often shocked. What most lowers concordance are too many silent map locations (room+arena avoids) blocking the attractor location signal. At 60% is an ideal amount of map information and condant pairs for the network to solve the spatial logic problem given. Click the Vector Option "0 and 1" to see readings for both frames/cycles, "1 only" is normally the greater of the two. This cordance can be used to gauge confidence for another system that adds the cellular behavior that controls timing. Outer two places in the network are not included in the total shown on the screen, only fully active center is used. In the ID Lab-5 default cell behavior is set by the TrainBehaviorRAM subroutine below, runtime changed by Data list. If the cell level behavior were included then that system would intelligently take care of all the tweaking, for us. In biology the cell level behavior is from a millions of year old genetic level behavior system, which can be added. The Design form stands in for what would be regulated by growth hormones and other factors influencing a morphology. -------------- 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.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2015,20:00    Completely non-responsive. You've been refuted, not so much again as still. Which, amusingly enough, points up yet another failure of your 'model.' Your notions, to give them status far beyond what they've earned, cannot account for the process by which a listener determines which meaning of 'still' applies in any given utterance.  Is it 'silent' or 'in the midst of an ongoing process'?  Or the device which produces moonshine, another verbal meaning challeng your effluent cannot even grapple with? Epic fail, same as it always was.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2015,20:59    From 2015: Quote The 2014 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine was awarded for the discoveries that have elucidated the components of the internal positioning system that is centered on the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex. Here I provide a less than objective discussion of the importance of these accomplishments to systems neuroscience. By identifying positioning components like place, direction, distance, borders and the like, the field is given the opportunity to have a shot at piecing together how these components are integrated into the synthetic positioning sense. We are also given what is in my view, the most experimentally accessible and therefore potentially understandable, cognitive representation. Lest we feel too confident in the completeness of our understanding, and to inspire redoubled curiosity, I briefly describe a preliminary observation from our work with the psychosis-inducing drug phencyclidine (PCP). While PCP does not disturb where individual place cells fire, it dramatically discoordinates how these cells discharge together in time. Trying to understand how the positioning component cells are coordinated to provide useful knowledge is an exciting and tenable problem to be working on. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi....bstract The article is not open access but in my case "how these cells discharge together in time" is determined by what the computer model requires for peak performance, which is studied and tested using the automatically generated line charts. The charts for the current "benchmark" can be seen in the "Charts" folder of the program. I often show the chart of the last benchmark on the screen while testing the experimental model for improvement. It's a method that uses the clues found in neuroscience for piecing together how these components are integrated into the synthetic positioning sense. -------------- 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: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2015,21:52    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 02 2015,04:59) From 2015: Quote The 2014 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine was awarded for the discoveries that have elucidated the components of the internal positioning system that is centered on the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex. Here I provide a less than objective discussion of the importance of these accomplishments to systems neuroscience. By identifying positioning components like place, direction, distance, borders and the like, the field is given the opportunity to have a shot at piecing together how these components are integrated into the synthetic positioning sense. We are also given what is in my view, the most experimentally accessible and therefore potentially understandable, cognitive representation. Lest we feel too confident in the completeness of our understanding, and to inspire redoubled curiosity, I briefly describe a preliminary observation from our work with the psychosis-inducing drug phencyclidine (PCP). While PCP does not disturb where individual place cells fire, it dramatically discoordinates how these cells discharge together in time. Trying to understand how the positioning component cells are coordinated to provide useful knowledge is an exciting and tenable problem to be working on. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi........bstract The article is not open access but in my case "how these cells discharge together in time" is determined by what the computer model requires for peak performance, which is studied and tested using the automatically generated line charts. The charts for the current "benchmark" can be seen in the "Charts" folder of the program. I often show the chart of the last benchmark on the screen while testing the experimental model for improvement. It's a method that uses the clues found in neuroscience for piecing together how these components are integrated into the synthetic positioning sense. Gary reads another abstract...makes complete bullshit claim...yawn. -------------- "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

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2015,22:15    Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 01 2015,17:48) As for the rest of it, your not-a-theory fails scientifically because you can't demonstrate most of your key claims, such as molecular intelligence,...... There is now a new branch of science called "molecular neuroscience": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......science Those who need to infer that molecular neuroscientists believe that molecules have tiny neural brains with which to form intelligent bonds are likewise seen as just annoying nutcases looking for a problem where none exists. The fields are not even about what one molecule has, they're for studying systems that can easily involve trillions of molecules per neuron. You are promoting a redefinition of standard terminology that only dimwits would even need. And I agree that there is nothing wrong with the current way the word "molecular" is supposed to be used as a descriptor. You are thus very on your own, and must deal with your semantic issues before the cause you to make an even bigger fool out of yourself with them. -------------- 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.

paragwinn Posts: 539 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2015,23:45    Gary, I was thinking, by "molecular intelligence", you meant this: The emergent nature of intelligence on the atomic and molecular scale, according to the enneagram -------------- All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11 F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11 Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2015,23:47    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 01 2015,22:15) Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 01 2015,17:48) As for the rest of it, your not-a-theory fails scientifically because you can't demonstrate most of your key claims, such as molecular intelligence,...... There is now a new branch of science called "molecular neuroscience": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......science Those who need to infer that molecular neuroscientists believe that molecules have tiny neural brains with which to form intelligent bonds are likewise seen as just annoying nutcases looking for a problem where none exists. The fields are not even about what one molecule has, they're for studying systems that can easily involve trillions of molecules per neuron. You are promoting a redefinition of standard terminology that only dimwits would even need. And I agree that there is nothing wrong with the current way the word "molecular" is supposed to be used as a descriptor. You are thus very on your own, and must deal with your semantic issues before the cause you to make an even bigger fool out of yourself with them. I keep underestimating how clueless you are. Yes, there is a field called molecular neuroscience.  It is new, but not brand new - the Journal of Molecular Neuroscience began publishing in 1989, and another journal called Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience began the following year. I have no arguments with molecular or cellular neuroscience, but you and they are not on the same page at all.   Molecular neuroscience is the branch of neuroscience that examines the biology of the nervous system with molecular biology, molecular genetics, protein chemistry, and related methodologies. Cellular neuroscience is the study of neurons at a cellular level including morphology and physiological properties.  Neither of them imply that cells or molecules have brains or nerves or are intelligent or that molecular neuroscientists would find anything to agree with in your rubbish. From your Wikipedia source:   Quote Molecular neuroscience is a branch of neuroscience that observes concepts in molecular biology applied to the nervous systems of animals. The scope of this subject primarily pertains to a reductionist view of neuroscience, considering topics such as molecular neuroanatomy, mechanisms of molecular signaling in the nervous system, the effects of genetics on neuronal development, and the molecular basis for neuroplasticity and neurodegenerative diseases.   I'm sticking to standard definitions.  I'm willing to listen to a redefinition if you would provide one that was readable and which made sense, and you demonstrated why we need to change the way we think about intelligence, none of which you have accomplished.  There is nothing in that which supports your bizarre concepts of molecular intelligence.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2015,00:08    Quote (paragwinn @ Aug. 01 2015,23:45) Gary, I was thinking, by "molecular intelligence", you meant this: The emergent nature of intelligence on the atomic and molecular scale, according to the enneagram I have no idea where that come from but with the "shock" part it's at least extremely imaginative. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2015,04:55    Quote The theory already accounts for all evidence I know of that exists in all of science, Assuming that you do not mean that you know "all of science" please tell us the science behind "molecular intelligence" oh Great Polymath. Then you can give an example of a "unimolecular" in your "model". Then I will turn cartwheels, naked, down The Headrow, Leeds. (Not a pretty sight, I assure you).

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2015,06:48    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 01 2015,23:15) ... You are promoting a redefinition of standard terminology that only dimwits would even need. ... That would be you, with your misuse and absurd redefinition of 'learn' in all its variants. As has been shown repeatedly, your usage requires a radical redefinition from standard usage and especially the standard usage in Cognitive  Science. Yet another in the ongoing epic fail that is your life.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2015,06:50    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 01 2015,21:59) ... "how these cells discharge together in time" is determined by what the computer model requires for peak performance, which is studied and tested using the automatically generated line charts. ... Not just wrong.  Totally, entirely, completely batshit insane. As should be obvious even to such a moron as yourself. The requirements of the computer model do not determine the behavior of cells.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2015,16:36    Quote (ChemiCat @ Aug. 02 2015,04:55) Assuming that you do not mean that you know "all of science" please tell us the science behind "molecular intelligence" oh Great Polymath. Speaking of polymath, check out the "fractal enneagram": http://www.doremishock.com/enneagr....ram.htm It seems unfair to leave you out. So I now wonder whether there is yet a "natural selection enneagram". Or one for "evolution". For those who are into enneagrams I do know of a very scientifically mysterious 9 based symmetry that is best seen here: http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehl....end.htm http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehl....nd2.htm The ability to conceptualize this unusual geometry and a healthy curiosity might be an advantage for scientifically figuring out how centrioles and other organelles work. -------------- 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.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2015,17:39    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 02 2015,17:36) ... The ability to conceptualize this unusual geometry and a healthy curiosity might be an advantage for scientifically figuring out how centrioles and other organelles work. You'll never know.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2015,18:23    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 02 2015,00:08) Quote (paragwinn @ Aug. 01 2015,23:45) Gary, I was thinking, by "molecular intelligence", you meant this: The emergent nature of intelligence on the atomic and molecular scale, according to the enneagram I have no idea where that come from but with the "shock" part it's at least extremely imaginative. From the doremi site, Quote We might say that intelligence is determined by the ability of matter to interact. This is what Gurdjieff was alluding to when he told Ouspensky that a baked potato is more intelligent than a raw potato. So, does your model also hold that baked potatoes are more intelligent than unbaked ones, or does it disagree?  If there is a difference in their degrees of intelligence, by exactly how much do they differ and in what units?  Or can you spot any of the errors in thinking involved in doremi's consideration of potatoes?  Anyway, why should we listen to you when Edgar Postrado has a more expansive and more recent ID model, which according to your own asserted standards makes your stuff obsolete?

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2015,01:00    Quote (NoName @ Aug. 02 2015,06:48) As has been shown repeatedly, your usage requires a radical redefinition from standard usage and especially the standard usage in Cognitive  Science. As I have been repeatedly showing the problem is primarily from others not being up to date on what's now happening in cognitive science, where a unifying model able to establish standard usage of terms between its subfields (AI, neuroscience, psychology, etc) does not even exist yet.  That's why I mentioned this year's article by Andre Fenton, which by the way also has a preview page where in the large illustration I can fuzzily see what I would expect for activity. The challenge for neuroscience was described as "By identifying positioning components like place, direction, distance, borders and the like, the field is given the opportunity to have a shot at piecing together how these components are integrated into the synthetic positioning sense." http://www.readcube.com/article....o.22451 The only thing for sure is that cognitive science has only just begun to establish standard terminology for all fields. Many of the AI models that were once thought to produce intelligence are being antiquated by what other fields of cognitive science are discovering. The model I program is also more specifically an AI (not neuroscience) program that includes the "positioning components like place, direction, distance, borders and the like" that are now of interest to neuroscientists. So with all said this makes AI useful again to other fields of cognitive science, as opposed to the whole field of AI being antiquated by the model neuroscience is now after. Neuroscientists must include neurological detail of circuits an AI model only has to reduce down to a simple as possible math function or network behavior without losing any of the performance the real thing has. There are two models possible. Each complements and compliments each other. Where there is nothing new from AI programmers to help neuroscientists along with their model it's expected that to them AI is a ho-hum branch of science that ran out of steam at the turn of the last century. My work helps to avoid that from happening. With an AI model like this not being overly complicated staying in contact with neuroscience only requires emailing important findings to Andre and occasionally others like Edvard, who only need that to work from and rather not have a pile of papers going into detail they already know. I best I can explain what may apply to the model they are working on that establishes the proper scientific terminology for neuroscience. I only have to get as close as I can then wait for what happens next with the model Andre has in the incubator. Terminology that fell into place like "molecular (level) intelligence" is required in theory that predicts its existence by ahead of time explaining how intelligence at that level works. In this case it's scientifically impossible to remove something like that from the logical construct of the theory that needs it that way to stay coherent everywhere else. It's now your responsibility to get used to it being that way in theory that goes everywhere else neuroscience is going using a more AI approach that makes it useful, instead of being in competition. It may seem weird but times change and Salvador Cordova possibly others in the ID movement are now working on the "molecular neuroscience" level where as he explained: at the genetic level of these cells is a "RAM" that gets "addressed" to figure out. Just as well they look for treasure in what others call "junk DNA" than none even try that way. In any event ID is as expected coming of age with an approach that needs the word "RAM" for DNA too for us to be specific, which is something else you have to get used to because the only thing that matters is that we understand each other. What you and others think is irrelevant. All areas of science have a unique lingo for understanding each other. The emerging niche that Sal and others in the ID movement found themselves pioneering requires another lingo that is doing just fine establishing what is required for an AI type approach where the systematics of "Intelligence" is detected by their being a "RAM" hooked up a certain way. Where he or other finds something useful neuroscientists will find it worth the read, wherever it's said and in whatever scientific lingo is required to make sense in such an "Intelligence" centered paradigm that looks for what causes what in all of biology not just brains. Being able to explain things differently is a good thing. Where the result is a RAM based computer model that puts it all in code that alone can best speak for it, anyway. It's in another language in addition to explaining it in words but for the logic of the system. All existing areas of cognitive science go on with whatever terminology already works for them. There is no scientific issue in any of the fields of science. What is needed for the niche we are working on to communicate is left up to us to decide, while what other niches need is up to them to decide. In that regard Sal's helping to establish the required DNA=RAM based thinking was a big help in an emerging area of AI science that neuroscience only needs something useful from. Neuroscientists do not even want to get involved in details like that. That's not their area and they have more important things to think about. Which is why the only ones who do are more like trolls just yanking my chain not neuroscientists and other science experts protesting like you are. In the real science all are too busy for what is going on outside their fields to even care about what you claim there is an issue with. Whatever floats our boat is just fine by them, while your issue with it is just plain nuts. -------------- 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.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2015,06:36    Quote (NoName @ Aug. 01 2015,18:40) Just for laughs, Gary, account for the acts required to craft a theory using nothing but your "model". Or a musical composition. Or the recognition of a melody played, transposed to a different key, at a different tempo, on a different instrument from that on which it has previously been heard. All are 'features of the universe best explained ny intelligent cause[s].' None can be encompassed by your effluent. Hey Gary -- unify the above with your obsessive logorrhea and your utter failure to make an impact anywhere.

damitall Posts: 331 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2015,06:44    I'm sure Slimy Sal is very proud of gaining acceptance in the Gaulin Group of elite scientists.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2015,07:18    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 03 2015,02:00)     Quote (NoName @ Aug. 02 2015,06:48) As has been shown repeatedly, your usage requires a radical redefinition from standard usage and especially the standard usage in Cognitive  Science. As I have been repeatedly showing the problem is primarily from others not being up to date on what's now happening in cognitive science, where a unifying model able to establish standard usage of terms between its subfields (AI, neuroscience, psychology, etc) does not even exist yet. False to fact. You've been incoherently asserting, not showing that your respondents are not up to speed with Cognitive Science.  Indeed, what you've shown is that you are almost entirely ignorant of the field.   Quote  ... The only thing for sure is that cognitive science has only just begun to establish standard terminology for all fields. Which rather contradicts your previous point about there being no current grounds for establishing common terminology. But the concept represented by the word 'learn' and its variants is neither new nor under any sort of sustained change by Cognitive Science.  It is, in fact, standard terminology, within and outside of Cognitive Science. Your usage violates the standard meanings and directly contradict the concepts involved.   Quote ... Terminology that fell into place like "molecular (level) intelligence" is required in theory that predicts its existence by ahead of time explaining how intelligence at that level works. Except, of course, that you have no explanation for it, and no justification for fantasizing such an element.  It is neither predicted by nor entailed by your "theory" as we have shown repeatedly.  The notion, as you attempt to use it, is incoherent, unnecessary, and, frankly, quite insane. It is an artifact of your inability to accept or conceptualize the reality that just because all intelligence is founded in molecular assemblies there is no need to assert that molecules as such are intelligent.  You resist this fundamental truth quite vigorously for a man of your, ahem, limited skills. If you had the faintest clue what 'emergent' means, you wouldn't have quite the problem here that you manifestly do have.  But then, the evidence that you completely fail to comprehend emergence litters your long-standing presence on the web.   Quote In this case it's scientifically impossible to remove something like that from the logical construct of the theory that needs it that way to stay coherent everywhere else. False to fact, as the previous 8+ years on the net, and 490+ pages here, demonstrate quite conclusively.  To say nothing of the fact that your "theory" is most emphatically not coherent, anywhere else.  It is no more a 'logical construct' than Jabberwocky.  Quite a bit less so, in fact. The evidence surrounds you but, being evidence, you reject it.   Quote ... There is no scientific issue in any of the fields of science. ... Yet another gem, fully up there with your assertion that your "theory" encompasses all of science.  You're a lunatic Gary. Deal with it.

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2015,08:08    I completely agree with NoName's assessment of your abilities and mental state, Gaulin. You have little or no understanding of chemistry or physics. Your insistence on using the term "molecular intelligence" demonstrates this perfectly. Your "Real-science evidence-free theory" is meaningless because of this baseless assertion. There is no way that  "Terminology that fell into place..." comes from any logical reasoning. We can add "logical" to the long list of words you misuse throughout your "model" and "theory". You would make better use of your time by trying to unify your theory with the Time Cube guy's efforts.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2015,08:51    Hey, at least his latest long screed once again pushed the fact-based obliteration of his "theory" onto the previous page, where he can continue to ignore it. Poor Gary, faced with an adversity of facts, he can only bluster and attempt to distract. It's such a shame that not a single fact anywhere supports any of his effluent. rofl

Pages: (622) < ... 488 489 490 491 492 [493] 494 495 496 497 498 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard