news aggregator

Post by NoName
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 05 2014,09:12)...
Gary,
Maybe you missed this bit from the BrainFacts terms and conditions:
      Quote No material from the BrainFacts.org blog may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way without the explicit permission of the owner.
Oh noes!  Gary is being oppressed, martyred, bullied by being held to the standards of an academia he was never part of.  Being held to the standards of intellectual property rights!
The horror!  The sheer unfairness!

ROFLMAO

Post by Jim_Wynne
Quote (NoName @ April 05 2014,07:28)     Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 05 2014,08:09)...
I thought there was no way they would miss the brainfacts.org link right under the illustration and in the text flow. Looks like I overestimated them, should have used bold type with arrows pointing to it with flashing graphic above and below to help them find the link.

If the illustration was from me then just like in school my name would be on it somewhere. I make sure to include that using a small fontsize to help indicate which ones came from me.
Now if you could only engage with matters of actual intellectual content in the same fashion, we might actually make some progress other than merely increasing the page count.

So how about it, Gary?  Are you prepared to clarify and justify 'molecular intelligence'?
Are you prepared to account for your misuse of the term 'learning' from Cognitive Science and Psychology?
Are you prepared to discuss whether or not a hippocampus is a sine qua non of "intelligent cause"?  What about antennae and sensillia?
Are you prepared to discuss the obvious difficulties for any biological entity that would store 'all possible paths' at each moment of time?
Are you prepared to justify your claim that your software in any way, shape, or form models anything from biology?  What are the properties that emerge from your software?  Where and how are your "three levels" represented in your code?
Etc.

Your "theory" and the alleged significance of your software have both been beaten into a fine pink mist long since dispersed by the breeze.  It's going to take a lot of effort to gather up the fractured bits and reassemble them into anything useful or interesting, but hey, it's your life, waste it as you please.  Just don't insist that we have to have to present something better or adopt your effluent.  Insofar as that is necessary, we merely present current Biology, Cognitive Science, and their related disciplines and sub-disciplines, none of which can benefit from anything you are up to.
As was once said about a co-worker in the "say something positive about the person" portion of an annual review:
'Well, he emits carbon dioxide, so he must be good for the trees'.
That's the sum total of the benefit you provide.
Well, that and the lulz.
Gary,
Maybe you missed this bit from the BrainFacts terms and conditions:
  Quote No material from the BrainFacts.org blog may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way without the explicit permission of the owner.

Listen Now. On this episode of ID the Future, hear an episode of Tom Woodward's radio show The Universe Next Door, which features CSC Research Coordinator Casey Luskin. Luskin explains the mystery of the Cambrian explosion, gives examples of...

Listen Now. On this episode of ID the Future, biologist Ann Gauger discusses the popular science myth that human DNA is only 1% different from that of chimps. Dr. Gauger shows why this common claim is false, looking at...

Listen Now. On this episode of ID The Future: If human engineers in the lab get molecular machines to imitate cellular machines, it's intelligent design. What does this imply about the cellular machines?...

Muscles as thin as a human hair help wings flap fifty times in the blink of an eye. Evolution News & Views

Radical misanthropic environmentalism serves a fearsome, destructive god. Wesley J. Smith http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism

Theophobic scientific materialists must come to terms with what is, for them, a worldview-defeating fact. Bruce Gordon

If the values of Julian Savulescu and other neo-eugenicists prevail, we will descend into tyranny. Wesley J. Smith http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism

Darwinians treat rational debate like a game, and they treat playing games as a matter of life or death. Stephen H. Webb

The "whale of the Cambrian," a large filter-feeding anomalocarid, has been brought to science's attention. Evolution News & Views

While Cosmos is simply ignoring the life-friendly fine-tuning of our planet, other scientists see it as an important question to investigate. Casey Luskin http://www.discovery.org/p/188

In the booming field of biomimetics, there's no thought of dysteleology. Evolution News & Views

The resulting story is a tricky mix of honest and not-so-honest reporting that is bound to mislead people. Joshua Youngkin http://www.discovery.org/p/501

According to NIH Director Francis Collins, authors can access the program for a nominal fee (subsidized by their federal research funding). Evolution News & Views

Driven by a materialistic agenda, Cosmos shuts up as haunted the tabooed territory of religion's positive influence on the development of science. Casey Luskin http://www.discovery.org/p/188

Post by NoName
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 05 2014,08:09)...
I thought there was no way they would miss the brainfacts.org link right under the illustration and in the text flow. Looks like I overestimated them, should have used bold type with arrows pointing to it with flashing graphic above and below to help them find the link.

If the illustration was from me then just like in school my name would be on it somewhere. I make sure to include that using a small fontsize to help indicate which ones came from me.
Now if you could only engage with matters of actual intellectual content in the same fashion, we might actually make some progress other than merely increasing the page count.

So how about it, Gary?  Are you prepared to clarify and justify 'molecular intelligence'?
Are you prepared to account for your misuse of the term 'learning' from Cognitive Science and Psychology?
Are you prepared to discuss whether or not a hippocampus is a sine qua non of "intelligent cause"?  What about antennae and sensillia?
Are you prepared to discuss the obvious difficulties for any biological entity that would store 'all possible paths' at each moment of time?
Are you prepared to justify your claim that your software in any way, shape, or form models anything from biology?  What are the properties that emerge from your software?  Where and how are your "three levels" represented in your code?
Etc.

Your "theory" and the alleged significance of your software have both been beaten into a fine pink mist long since dispersed by the breeze.  It's going to take a lot of effort to gather up the fractured bits and reassemble them into anything useful or interesting, but hey, it's your life, waste it as you please.  Just don't insist that we have to have to present something better or adopt your effluent.  Insofar as that is necessary, we merely present current Biology, Cognitive Science, and their related disciplines and sub-disciplines, none of which can benefit from anything you are up to.
As was once said about a co-worker in the "say something positive about the person" portion of an annual review:
'Well, he emits carbon dioxide, so he must be good for the trees'.
That's the sum total of the benefit you provide.
Well, that and the lulz.

Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (k.e.. @ April 04 2014,09:19)   Quote (NoName @ April 04 2014,16:22)     Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 04 2014,09:12)       Quote (NoName @ April 03 2014,12:54)       Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 03 2014,13:40)...
What makes you so sure that I was the one who drew the illustration?
Gee, could it be the complete lack of attribution to some other source?  You know, one of those things that actual researchers, actual scientists, even people in the humanities, are expected to do when they use material they did not produce and that is not already in the public domain?
Even in those cases, attribution is usually given just to make completely clear who did what.
Oh, silly me -- that's why there's no attribution.  Making things clear is against your standard policies and behaviors.
Never mind.
In fairness to GG, and I missed it too, he does provide a link to the site where the image came from.
Fair enough, although that doesn't exactly meet any standard of adequate professionalism of which I am aware.
Certainly any of my professors would have punted a paper that included a link to a source without proper footnoting/referencing.  Links, especially from repetitive-link-posting-disorder victims such as Gary, are just not good enough.  IMNSHO ;-)
Gary has no ethical standards that provoke concern to him. The whole idea is more foreign than science to him. He's on a one man  mission to draw attention to his misery.
It looks to me like The Three Stooges arrived, to fix our science problem, nyuk nyuk nyuk.

I thought there was no way they would miss the brainfacts.org link right under the illustration and in the text flow. Looks like I overestimated them, should have used bold type with arrows pointing to it with flashing graphic above and below to help them find the link.

If the illustration was from me then just like in school my name would be on it somewhere. I make sure to include that using a small fontsize to help indicate which ones came from me.

Was the mammoth "created on the Sixth Day with the other beasts of the field"? According to the Senate version of House Bill 4482 in South Carolina, it was.

 

Post by k.e..
Quote (NoName @ April 04 2014,16:22) Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 04 2014,09:12)   Quote (NoName @ April 03 2014,12:54)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 03 2014,13:40)...
What makes you so sure that I was the one who drew the illustration?
Gee, could it be the complete lack of attribution to some other source?  You know, one of those things that actual researchers, actual scientists, even people in the humanities, are expected to do when they use material they did not produce and that is not already in the public domain?
Even in those cases, attribution is usually given just to make completely clear who did what.
Oh, silly me -- that's why there's no attribution.  Making things clear is against your standard policies and behaviors.
Never mind.
In fairness to GG, and I missed it too, he does provide a link to the site where the image came from.
Fair enough, although that doesn't exactly meet any standard of adequate professionalism of which I am aware.
Certainly any of my professors would have punted a paper that included a link to a source without proper footnoting/referencing.  Links, especially from repetitive-link-posting-disorder victims such as Gary, are just not good enough.  IMNSHO ;-)
Gary has no ethical standards that provoke concern to him. The whole idea is more foreign than science to him. He's on a one man  mission to draw attention to his misery.