news aggregator
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 26 2014,20:55)You have all manner of unsupported assertions outstanding, from large matters to small. We've been asking for your evidence since the beginning of this thread, so show us up and share some of it..............
You are at least two years too late to pretend that I owe you or anyone else anything:
Quote This is the fourth in a series of cognitive systems for experimenting with the basics of intelligence and for programming towards a computer model to produce the phenomenon of intelligent cause (collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level on their own combine to create another level of intelligence). The current design finishes up earlier hippocampi work, and now the critter does very well in the shock arena test. This cognitive ability required adding a four layer navigational Grid Cell Network with Boundary Cells that are set by a Place Cell Network, which stores the What, Where and When (episodic memories) of bumps and shocks received in a circular arena with an invisible moving shock-zone it must learn to avoid, based upon the angle of its arena to a white cue-card on the wall of the room it is inside (see Notes folder) that is either current time or future time. This is analogous to using the angle of the sun as a time reference, then using that in our internal world model (the Grid Network) to visualizing what will change in the hours ahead. How its brain works is based upon scientific literature (as recent as 2014) and experimentation. Although the code is based on Attractor Network Theory that predicts an interaction such as this might occur in the brains of animals, I know of no computer model like this one. It is (to the best of my knowledge) original scientific software, with no known equivalent. To simplify the project and its code the X,Y position of the critter and its head angle are from the Environment module (as opposed to using step-counting and visual information) that updates its location and draws to the screen, which is similar to navigating by the stars (and/or polarized light) in darkness towards an earlier encountered food source, it sometimes has to feel around for using its mouth. The IDLab4 is the next logical step towards systems biology related cognitive models that can truly scientifically answer the big-questions (other algorithms honestly can't), which pertain to how our brain works, and its origin. Enjoy the science!
If your do-nothing crowd does not want to participate in the scientific process then that's fine by me. All in it already disgraced themselves, real bad, and deserve all that goes along with so well proving how scientifically useless y'all are.
Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 26 2014,20:55)You have all manner of unsupported assertions outstanding, from large matters to small. We've been asking for your evidence since the beginning of this thread, so show us up and share some of it..............
You are at least two years too late to pretend that I owe you or anyone else anything:
Quote This is the fourth in a series of cognitive systems for experimenting with the basics of intelligence and for programming towards a computer model to produce the phenomenon of intelligent cause (collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level on their own combine to create another level of intelligence). The current design finishes up earlier hippocampi work, and now the critter does very well in the shock arena test. This cognitive ability required adding a four layer navigational Grid Cell Network with Boundary Cells that are set by a Place Cell Network, which stores the What, Where and When (episodic memories) of bumps and shocks received in a circular arena with an invisible moving shock-zone it must learn to avoid, based upon the angle of its arena to a white cue-card on the wall of the room it is inside (see Notes folder) that is either current time or future time. This is analogous to using the angle of the sun as a time reference, then using that in our internal world model (the Grid Network) to visualizing what will change in the hours ahead. How its brain works is based upon scientific literature (as recent as 2014) and experimentation. Although the code is based on Attractor Network Theory that predicts an interaction such as this might occur in the brains of animals, I know of no computer model like this one. It is (to the best of my knowledge) original scientific software, with no known equivalent. To simplify the project and its code the X,Y position of the critter and its head angle are from the Environment module (as opposed to using step-counting and visual information) that updates its location and draws to the screen, which is similar to navigating by the stars (and/or polarized light) in darkness towards an earlier encountered food source, it sometimes has to feel around for using its mouth. The IDLab4 is the next logical step towards systems biology related cognitive models that can truly scientifically answer the big-questions (other algorithms honestly can't), which pertain to how our brain works, and its origin. Enjoy the science!
If your do-nothing crowd does not want to participate in the scientific process then that's fine by me. All in it already disgraced themselves, real bad, and deserve all that goes along with so well proving how scientifically useless y'all are.
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by didymos
LOL. Joe is trying to revise history again:
Quote Just because I threw some watermelon rinds out into the woods and they collected ticks- yup 8 legs and all- ,which was totally unexpected, evos are having a hissy fit. And yes I did reproduce it.
But that was years ago and it ws a very dry summer. Dry enough to dry out the vernal pool at the bottom of the hill- something that I had also never observed.
I don't know what the ticks were doing there but the more I thought about the more I figured they were hanging out waiting for a host. A potential host-birds, chipmunks, red and grey squirrels- comes by looking for something with water and some ticks attach themselves.
Anything else I can help you with?
Yes, I'm sure that conclusion had nothing to do with everyone pointing out how egregiously stupid the whole idea of watermelon-eating ticks was.
LOL. Joe is trying to revise history again:
Quote Just because I threw some watermelon rinds out into the woods and they collected ticks- yup 8 legs and all- ,which was totally unexpected, evos are having a hissy fit. And yes I did reproduce it.
But that was years ago and it ws a very dry summer. Dry enough to dry out the vernal pool at the bottom of the hill- something that I had also never observed.
I don't know what the ticks were doing there but the more I thought about the more I figured they were hanging out waiting for a host. A potential host-birds, chipmunks, red and grey squirrels- comes by looking for something with water and some ticks attach themselves.
Anything else I can help you with?
Yes, I'm sure that conclusion had nothing to do with everyone pointing out how egregiously stupid the whole idea of watermelon-eating ticks was.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by N.Wells
Quote I'm currently distilling more evidence than your head can even hold. Not that it seems you would be interested in anything that pertains to "intelligence", in a debate pertaining to "intelligence".
You have all manner of unsupported assertions outstanding, from large matters to small. We've been asking for your evidence since the beginning of this thread, so show us up and share some of it. However, bear in mind that evidence is documented, corroborated information that logically supports the conclusion, not just hollow assertions.
Quote I'm currently distilling more evidence than your head can even hold. Not that it seems you would be interested in anything that pertains to "intelligence", in a debate pertaining to "intelligence".
You have all manner of unsupported assertions outstanding, from large matters to small. We've been asking for your evidence since the beginning of this thread, so show us up and share some of it. However, bear in mind that evidence is documented, corroborated information that logically supports the conclusion, not just hollow assertions.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by NoName
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 26 2014,18:44) Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 26 2014,17:32) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 26 2014,17:28) Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 26 2014,16:16)So you've been doing science as well?
I guess that the answer depends on how you define "doing science". If it involves bending over for the swellheads then no, I stay away from that.
Ah, can't take a little evidence, eh?
The persecutions that you go through for being a raving lunatic...
Glen Davidson
I'm currently distilling more evidence than your head can even hold. Not that it seems you would be interested in anything that pertains to "intelligence", in a debate pertaining to "intelligence".
My break is over. Back to the science work!
Except of course you have no definition of 'intelligence' nor a "theory" that can handle any instance of intelligence that does not include motor activity.
Nor have you ever presented any evidence in support of your gibberish.
Epic fail, as so often is the case with your bluster and bravado.
BTW, evidence suggests you couldn't distill the whiskey out of a bottle of bourbon.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 26 2014,18:44) Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 26 2014,17:32) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 26 2014,17:28) Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 26 2014,16:16)So you've been doing science as well?
I guess that the answer depends on how you define "doing science". If it involves bending over for the swellheads then no, I stay away from that.
Ah, can't take a little evidence, eh?
The persecutions that you go through for being a raving lunatic...
Glen Davidson
I'm currently distilling more evidence than your head can even hold. Not that it seems you would be interested in anything that pertains to "intelligence", in a debate pertaining to "intelligence".
My break is over. Back to the science work!
Except of course you have no definition of 'intelligence' nor a "theory" that can handle any instance of intelligence that does not include motor activity.
Nor have you ever presented any evidence in support of your gibberish.
Epic fail, as so often is the case with your bluster and bravado.
BTW, evidence suggests you couldn't distill the whiskey out of a bottle of bourbon.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by jeffox
Quote I guess that the answer depends on how you define "doing science". If it involves bending over for the swellheads then no, I stay away from that.
No, it involves making logical conclusions based on actual evidence - but we've told you that numerous times already.
Ha ha, now we're just rattling your cage, Goo Goo! Bwhhhahahahahhahahah!!!!!
You're a hoot!
Quote I guess that the answer depends on how you define "doing science". If it involves bending over for the swellheads then no, I stay away from that.
No, it involves making logical conclusions based on actual evidence - but we've told you that numerous times already.
Ha ha, now we're just rattling your cage, Goo Goo! Bwhhhahahahahhahahah!!!!!
You're a hoot!
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 26 2014,17:32) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 26 2014,17:28) Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 26 2014,16:16)So you've been doing science as well?
I guess that the answer depends on how you define "doing science". If it involves bending over for the swellheads then no, I stay away from that.
Ah, can't take a little evidence, eh?
The persecutions that you go through for being a raving lunatic...
Glen Davidson
I'm currently distilling more evidence than your head can even hold. Not that it seems you would be interested in anything that pertains to "intelligence", in a debate pertaining to "intelligence".
My break is over. Back to the science work!
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 26 2014,17:32) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 26 2014,17:28) Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 26 2014,16:16)So you've been doing science as well?
I guess that the answer depends on how you define "doing science". If it involves bending over for the swellheads then no, I stay away from that.
Ah, can't take a little evidence, eh?
The persecutions that you go through for being a raving lunatic...
Glen Davidson
I'm currently distilling more evidence than your head can even hold. Not that it seems you would be interested in anything that pertains to "intelligence", in a debate pertaining to "intelligence".
My break is over. Back to the science work!
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Glen Davidson
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 26 2014,17:28) Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 26 2014,16:16)So you've been doing science as well?
I guess that the answer depends on how you define "doing science". If it involves bending over for the swellheads then no, I stay away from that.
Ah, can't take a little evidence, eh?
The persecutions that you go through for being a raving lunatic...
Glen Davidson
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 26 2014,17:28) Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 26 2014,16:16)So you've been doing science as well?
I guess that the answer depends on how you define "doing science". If it involves bending over for the swellheads then no, I stay away from that.
Ah, can't take a little evidence, eh?
The persecutions that you go through for being a raving lunatic...
Glen Davidson
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 26 2014,16:16)So you've been doing science as well?
I guess that the answer depends on how you define "doing science". If it involves bending over for the swellheads then no, I stay away from that.
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 26 2014,16:16)So you've been doing science as well?
I guess that the answer depends on how you define "doing science". If it involves bending over for the swellheads then no, I stay away from that.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 26 2014,16:54)That would be the UD / ID world that's full of nutcases who use Intelligent Design as a wedge to promote a religious agenda.
Then you are saying that you have more in common with your enemy, than you are able to realize.
Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 26 2014,16:54)That would be the UD / ID world that's full of nutcases who use Intelligent Design as a wedge to promote a religious agenda.
Then you are saying that you have more in common with your enemy, than you are able to realize.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by N.Wells
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 26 2014,15:42) Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 26 2014,09:04)You're an attention whore.
After over 300 pages of being trashed for NOT being an attention whore for the science news media (primarily journals) your accusation is an oxymoron.
But do have fun with your sock-puppets, while I try to get some more science work done.
So we can add attention whore, science news media, scientific journals, oxymorons, and sockpuppets to the ever-growing list of concepts that you don't fully comprehend.
Quote That will teach me, for attempting to have a scientific discussion with hopeless nutcases, in a forum for promoting a religious agenda that uses the Theory of Intelligent Design as a weapon. That would be the UD / ID world that's full of nutcases that use Intelligent Design as a wedge to promote a religious agenda. The only hopeless nutcase around here is yourself. This site is more for amusement than serious science, but we are clearly in favor of science rather than religion and are holding Intelligent Design up for ridicule as its proponents have so far been unable to show that it is good for anything else. You have shown that you have no interest in scientific discussion, given that whenever someone raises a legitimate criticism (the way one does in scientific discussion), your responses are deflection, whining, insults, posting links to music, ignoring the criticism, changing the topic, and posting about supposed advances in your program. You give the impression that for you "scientific discussion" means only conversations that run along the lines of "GG: Here buried in this incomprehensible pile of verbiage without any supporting evidence is my self-evident model in all its amazing wondrousness; Rest of the world: Wow, that's fantastic, you're a genius". However, it isn't, you're not, and science doesn't work that way.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 26 2014,15:42) Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 26 2014,09:04)You're an attention whore.
After over 300 pages of being trashed for NOT being an attention whore for the science news media (primarily journals) your accusation is an oxymoron.
But do have fun with your sock-puppets, while I try to get some more science work done.
So we can add attention whore, science news media, scientific journals, oxymorons, and sockpuppets to the ever-growing list of concepts that you don't fully comprehend.
Quote That will teach me, for attempting to have a scientific discussion with hopeless nutcases, in a forum for promoting a religious agenda that uses the Theory of Intelligent Design as a weapon. That would be the UD / ID world that's full of nutcases that use Intelligent Design as a wedge to promote a religious agenda. The only hopeless nutcase around here is yourself. This site is more for amusement than serious science, but we are clearly in favor of science rather than religion and are holding Intelligent Design up for ridicule as its proponents have so far been unable to show that it is good for anything else. You have shown that you have no interest in scientific discussion, given that whenever someone raises a legitimate criticism (the way one does in scientific discussion), your responses are deflection, whining, insults, posting links to music, ignoring the criticism, changing the topic, and posting about supposed advances in your program. You give the impression that for you "scientific discussion" means only conversations that run along the lines of "GG: Here buried in this incomprehensible pile of verbiage without any supporting evidence is my self-evident model in all its amazing wondrousness; Rest of the world: Wow, that's fantastic, you're a genius". However, it isn't, you're not, and science doesn't work that way.
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by JohnW
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2014,14:43)Over at Untelligent Reasoning:
Quote If you had my command of the englich language...
I don't think anyone knows Englisch like Joe.. Does it have Germanic roots?
Beautiful.
We really must introduce him to Gary. Virtual vegan ticks, here we come!
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2014,14:43)Over at Untelligent Reasoning:
Quote If you had my command of the englich language...
I don't think anyone knows Englisch like Joe.. Does it have Germanic roots?
Beautiful.
We really must introduce him to Gary. Virtual vegan ticks, here we come!
Categories: AE Public BB
Repeal effort revived again in Louisiana
Senate Bill 175 (PDF), prefiled in the Louisiana Senate on February 25, 2014, and provisionally referred to the Senate Committee on Education, would, if enacted, repeal Louisiana Revised Statutes 17:285.1, which implemented the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act, passed and enacted in 2008.
Categories: Pro-Science News
The Nye-Ham Creation Debate: Where Was Intelligent Design?
Listen Now. On this episode of ID the Future, Research Coordinator Casey Luskin discusses the recent debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye that pitted Young Earth Creationism against neo-Darwinian evolution. Since the great majority of Ham's arguments amounted...
Categories: Anti-Science News
Bill Nye "The Science Guy" on Doubting Darwinian Evolution
Listen Now. On this episode of ID the Future, hear about a video from Big Think featuring Bill Nye "The Science Guy" lamenting the fact that many people in the United States are skeptical of Darwinian evolution. Nye makes...
Categories: Anti-Science News
The War on Humans, pt. 2
Listen Now. On this episode of ID the Future, hear from bioethicist Wesley J. Smith as he continues his conversation on his new book The War on Humans, also adapted as a documentary film. In this second podcast of...
Categories: Anti-Science News
Can You Mix Engineering and Natural Selection?
Oil and water don't mix, and neither do engineering principles and natural selection.
Evolution News & Views
Categories: Anti-Science News
On Uncommon Knowledge, an Uncommonly Comprehensive Statement of David Berlinski's Picture of the World
Unlike reading a single book by Berlinski, what stands out about this interview is that it allows you to grasp in a brief crystallized form David's view of science and society, how it all fits together.
David Klinghoffer
http://www.discovery.org/p/209
Categories: Anti-Science News
Here's What the NY Times Was Saying About Evolution in 1980
Sharing with students this type of mainstream scientific criticism of Darwinian theory is precisely the kind of speech that academic freedom laws seek to protect.
Granville Sewell
Categories: Anti-Science News
Welcome to "RNA World," the Five-Star Hotel of Origin-of-Life Theories
Yes, RNA theorists admit, there are difficulties. The very same people who called RNA world "the molecular biologist's dream" also called it "the prebiotic chemist's nightmare."
Denyse O'Leary
Categories: Anti-Science News
"It Used to Be Said of Certain Kinds of Scientific Utopians that They Loved Humanity, but Didn't Like Any Actual Humans...."
"Now many scientific utopians don't even like humanity." -- Reagan biographer Steven Hayward on The War on Humans
Evolution News & Views
Categories: Anti-Science News
