AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Quack
Wow! Incredible how much information surface by clicking a couple of links! Zeitgeist
Wow! Incredible how much information surface by clicking a couple of links! Zeitgeist
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Quack
Quote (Woodbine @ April 30 2013,22:43) Quote Programming break over! Back to finishing the eyes. Which reminds to say that no Quack I have to stay on this track, but the latest protest at PSC but model still there with it not going past that is all you really need to hold you in what happens in feedback, where it ends then that's it issue all over for good. But in keeping the model in-spirit with what it in culture expresses it needs to somehow be cotton-eyed with a glowing screen like this:
Utter gibberish.
To put it mildly.
Quote (Woodbine @ April 30 2013,22:43) Quote Programming break over! Back to finishing the eyes. Which reminds to say that no Quack I have to stay on this track, but the latest protest at PSC but model still there with it not going past that is all you really need to hold you in what happens in feedback, where it ends then that's it issue all over for good. But in keeping the model in-spirit with what it in culture expresses it needs to somehow be cotton-eyed with a glowing screen like this:
Utter gibberish.
To put it mildly.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by JohnW
Quote (Nomad @ April 30 2013,21:02)I'm going to raise the suggestion that he is the most elaborate Poe I've ever encountered.
No, seriously, that is true gibberish. He spends a lot of his time spouting stuff that could have been generated by gibberish generators.
But does anyone remember a long time ago, when the discussion turned to sex for some reason, and suddenly he got coherent? It was like the fog was lifted and he could construct entirely meaningful sentences. He demonstrated an understanding of basic forms of humor and seemed like a totally different person.
I got the distinct feeling he was winking at us.
I'm not sure which is sadder: that Gary is what he seems (totally delusional, and wasting decades on a "model" which is completely detached from reality); or that Gary is Poeing us (wasting decades on winding people up).
Either way, he needs professional help.
Quote (Nomad @ April 30 2013,21:02)I'm going to raise the suggestion that he is the most elaborate Poe I've ever encountered.
No, seriously, that is true gibberish. He spends a lot of his time spouting stuff that could have been generated by gibberish generators.
But does anyone remember a long time ago, when the discussion turned to sex for some reason, and suddenly he got coherent? It was like the fog was lifted and he could construct entirely meaningful sentences. He demonstrated an understanding of basic forms of humor and seemed like a totally different person.
I got the distinct feeling he was winking at us.
I'm not sure which is sadder: that Gary is what he seems (totally delusional, and wasting decades on a "model" which is completely detached from reality); or that Gary is Poeing us (wasting decades on winding people up).
Either way, he needs professional help.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Nomad @ April 30 2013,23:02)But does anyone remember a long time ago, when the discussion turned to sex for some reason, and suddenly he got coherent? It was like the fog was lifted and he could construct entirely meaningful sentences. He demonstrated an understanding of basic forms of humor and seemed like a totally different person.
I would expect that is due to your at least staying current enough in the topic of sex to have no problem with how far I go with that subject.
And here's a most classic study of human courting habits to help keep you busy while I'm working on the program, in case you need it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....wyZS5Rw
Quote (Nomad @ April 30 2013,23:02)But does anyone remember a long time ago, when the discussion turned to sex for some reason, and suddenly he got coherent? It was like the fog was lifted and he could construct entirely meaningful sentences. He demonstrated an understanding of basic forms of humor and seemed like a totally different person.
I would expect that is due to your at least staying current enough in the topic of sex to have no problem with how far I go with that subject.
And here's a most classic study of human courting habits to help keep you busy while I'm working on the program, in case you need it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....wyZS5Rw
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Nomad
Quote (Woodbine @ April 30 2013,22:43) Quote Programming break over! Back to finishing the eyes. Which reminds to say that no Quack I have to stay on this track, but the latest protest at PSC but model still there with it not going past that is all you really need to hold you in what happens in feedback, where it ends then that's it issue all over for good. But in keeping the model in-spirit with what it in culture expresses it needs to somehow be cotton-eyed with a glowing screen like this:
Utter gibberish.
I'm going to raise the suggestion that he is the most elaborate Poe I've ever encountered.
No, seriously, that is true gibberish. He spends a lot of his time spouting stuff that could have been generated by gibberish generators.
But does anyone remember a long time ago, when the discussion turned to sex for some reason, and suddenly he got coherent? It was like the fog was lifted and he could construct entirely meaningful sentences. He demonstrated an understanding of basic forms of humor and seemed like a totally different person.
I got the distinct feeling he was winking at us.
Quote (Woodbine @ April 30 2013,22:43) Quote Programming break over! Back to finishing the eyes. Which reminds to say that no Quack I have to stay on this track, but the latest protest at PSC but model still there with it not going past that is all you really need to hold you in what happens in feedback, where it ends then that's it issue all over for good. But in keeping the model in-spirit with what it in culture expresses it needs to somehow be cotton-eyed with a glowing screen like this:
Utter gibberish.
I'm going to raise the suggestion that he is the most elaborate Poe I've ever encountered.
No, seriously, that is true gibberish. He spends a lot of his time spouting stuff that could have been generated by gibberish generators.
But does anyone remember a long time ago, when the discussion turned to sex for some reason, and suddenly he got coherent? It was like the fog was lifted and he could construct entirely meaningful sentences. He demonstrated an understanding of basic forms of humor and seemed like a totally different person.
I got the distinct feeling he was winking at us.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Woodbine
Quote Programming break over! Back to finishing the eyes. Which reminds to say that no Quack I have to stay on this track, but the latest protest at PSC but model still there with it not going past that is all you really need to hold you in what happens in feedback, where it ends then that's it issue all over for good. But in keeping the model in-spirit with what it in culture expresses it needs to somehow be cotton-eyed with a glowing screen like this:
Utter gibberish.
Quote Programming break over! Back to finishing the eyes. Which reminds to say that no Quack I have to stay on this track, but the latest protest at PSC but model still there with it not going past that is all you really need to hold you in what happens in feedback, where it ends then that's it issue all over for good. But in keeping the model in-spirit with what it in culture expresses it needs to somehow be cotton-eyed with a glowing screen like this:
Utter gibberish.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 30 2013,12:38) Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 30 2013,10:29) Quote (Southstar @ April 30 2013,03:17) Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 29 2013,08:10).
What a matter Gary? Did you suddenly loose all that evidence to back your claims? Or are you just attempting to run away from reality?
Please provide supporting evidence for your claims listed above or shut up!
Since in all fairness you did respond to claim n.4 by making further claims, I will ask you to substantiate these new claims.
Quote
No, I explained why you and others are not even current enough in the relevant fields to have opinions that scientists or the general public are even interested in. Science goes on, without you even being where the action's at that changes it.
1) No you did not explain, you asserted... (this was already pointed out).
2) Please indicate what the relevant fields are and who are the people whom are "current enough" that share your opinion in these fields. Please provide evidence such as published research showing that your specific ideas are shared. Without supplying this evidence you are wilfully exposing yourself for the liar that you are...
3) Your last sentence indicates that you know where the "action's at". Please indicate how you know where cutting edge biology is being done (please indicate lab names/journal names) and show that you are a privy to this research.
It looks like I'm going to have some science time today, and have been working on the new Intelligence Design Lab program that accomplishes what you are asking for. I'm now incorporating the latest ideas that were formed at this and the Kurzweil Accelerating Intelligence forum and from more recent newsworthy research. I'm now giving the new even more functionally colorful critter its eyes back, so that it may see the light!
A theory becomes "accepted" by being found useful. It's as simple as that.
There is no substitute for being where the people who program AI and cognitive models including (not just for biology) math-fractals with a model of your own for others to get ideas from, for their models. That is why you are also being answered with what cognitive scientists and others want to see, that I'm now programming. The model and theory being useful and not much of an issue anymore speaks for itself, where science is truly spoken therefore can be understood...
Question... how can you write code to explain something that you can't explain using words?
That is an awesome question. Seeing I made to to where I at least wanted to be by today on the model will answer that, then get back to work on it.
Having to program a model tests whether what is being talked about in words works as well as the words make it seem. Many times I have an idea that sounds like it has to work, but when programmed I find out it has to be another way.
The fate of the new thermodynamic theory with the complex calculus equations that has cognitive scientists wondering what it’s good for was ultimately determined by how well it makes a working model. In that case the balls that bounce a certain way and other models became categorized as a “Spherical Cow” that only works in a vacuum. It makes perfect sense to physicists but their model did not help increase the milk production of the farmer’s cows. I still see what the paper is saying much the same way as the model I am programming, so I’m not that negative, but discovering the way the models work alike would not change anything. What I see in the new research is a more William Dembski way of starting with the outcomes of an intelligent process, not its circuit that wires it up to motor/muscles with confidence/hedonic and such.
In cognitive science, systems biology and other fields this theory covers what matters is how well it works when programmed. It’s nice to say something beautiful that makes sense in another theory like “forged by the hammer of natural selection” but that does not explain how to program virtual living things, therefore it does not make any sense at all in this theory even though it does in other. The paradigms are completely different. There are no EA/GA’s to be found in ID there are instead Intelligence Design Labs for many things, which all use the same core circuit/algorithm. That’s why I earlier mentioned the ID model dusting EA/GA models where theory must pertain to cognitive models instead. The difference is even what led to the latest comment for the ID Lab at Planet Source Code that expected a GA which this model is not. It did though give me a chance to finally thank Ian (and others who might want to know I’m working on the next from this forum) for such a welcoming email a couple of New Year’s ago when entering a state of depression from all the battle since it appearing there that Thanksgiving to help make that holiday bright in a way that takes a politically tormenting theory like this to make possible. What a roller coaster that was and I’m glad to be over its first hills, where the ride loses the gravity that keeps it going.
Even though the design of the critter in the model is simple it avoids becoming a Spherical Cow by including real-world challenges like reversing thrust just right to stop in the right place then stay there, along with eye, antennae, interoceptive motor/muscle, taste/touch sensilla, and other sensory of a living thing. Past that modeling point it’s just getting fancy with details that are like trying to make a robot more intelligent by giving a nicer paint-job.
What is most is useful is reducing down to what is most important, which then applies to new sciences cognitive science never connected to before. But to apply it you first have to be able to see the model as a Sesame Street to the Dinosaur Train that none the less has what does in fact have to be there or be iffy whether one could make a Watson from that after adding all the complexities that human vocal motor systems and internet’s worth of knowledge present to the modeling problem.
My constantly asking for anyone’s better model is not the insult it might seem that’s because I’m used to comparing them. That’s how anyone who has to actually program something intelligent weighs the merit of what comes around to explain how intelligence works, which includes Ray and others working on a next generation Google-brain. To them, the model I program is like they switched TV channel to PBS and found that Sesame Street now has a simplified IBM Watson even helping to explain what a hypothesis is. It’s not anything new as far as how the best models of intelligence work, but is still novel.
I don’t mind being K-12 in comparison to state of the art human level intelligence that others model. Not having to compete is expected where a model has the essence of what their models already have in it. It’s no surprise the model I have been studying predicted a “guess” to test true or false (hypothesis) is absolutely required or the system will not be intelligent as is needed to win a most difficult game show against humans who know the game well.
The ID model helps eliminate guesswork as to what is most vitally important to have in any cognitive model, which is good to know when working on more complex ones possible from that. It does not send anyone back to the drawing board, instead has ideas to help conceptualize what they already have going on in the system from that starting point. What might change includes how others describe how their creations work to the general public in block-flow diagrams with a RAM shown like in an electronics schematic in the middle with confidence gauged pleasure seeking hedonic (system) on top of that which forms hypotheses from which comes even science that senses internet data. This helps simplify an already complex system needing to be somehow drawn out for an illustration that boils down to the same thing, even where differently drawn out another way.
It’s useful to compare notes with a model designed for the other end of the complexity scale, for ideas to help sort out the complexity others end up with on their end. Where all is going well you expect what there is now, no objection from anyone in the area of science that is most impacted by the model and theory, cognitive science. That requires having a model that fills a nifty niche that does other things besides that like help make cognitive science less ignored in public schools and outside the classroom like in this forum for another theory, that is not so computer model driven and where modeled needs an EA/GA model not an ID Lab. So there is no scientific conflict with evolutionary biology, even though I at times say the ID model dusts the other is something else. It is fair to say that where good old Darwinian theory works fine for putting lineages together then might as well leave good enough alone. Paleontology doesn’t have to change things all around for ID theory, it’s just there for the more cognitive related problems needing to be solved, where you have to start somewhere and keeping it simple before getting into how the whole human brain works is a plus even for a paleontologist.
Programming break over! Back to finishing the eyes. Which reminds to say that no Quack I have to stay on this track, but the latest protest at PSC but model still there with it not going past that is all you really need to hold you in what happens in feedback, where it ends then that's it issue all over for good. But in keeping the model in-spirit with what it in culture expresses it needs to somehow be cotton-eyed with a glowing screen like this:
Wii Workouts - Just Dance - Cotton Eye Joe
or Just Dance Wii - Rednex - Cotton Eye Joe
Is there some certain color or property like "pastel" that it needs to bling what Cotton Eye Joe would have to make their eyes cottony? Inside at the center and outside around it maybe lash sensilla to sense with like compound eyes do have and should look like eyelashes where added to the 2D model? I'm at a loss on what it needs to be as cute as Joe was, so all are welcome to set me straight on how that's accomplished in cyberspace using basic geometry.
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 30 2013,12:38) Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 30 2013,10:29) Quote (Southstar @ April 30 2013,03:17) Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 29 2013,08:10).
What a matter Gary? Did you suddenly loose all that evidence to back your claims? Or are you just attempting to run away from reality?
Please provide supporting evidence for your claims listed above or shut up!
Since in all fairness you did respond to claim n.4 by making further claims, I will ask you to substantiate these new claims.
Quote
No, I explained why you and others are not even current enough in the relevant fields to have opinions that scientists or the general public are even interested in. Science goes on, without you even being where the action's at that changes it.
1) No you did not explain, you asserted... (this was already pointed out).
2) Please indicate what the relevant fields are and who are the people whom are "current enough" that share your opinion in these fields. Please provide evidence such as published research showing that your specific ideas are shared. Without supplying this evidence you are wilfully exposing yourself for the liar that you are...
3) Your last sentence indicates that you know where the "action's at". Please indicate how you know where cutting edge biology is being done (please indicate lab names/journal names) and show that you are a privy to this research.
It looks like I'm going to have some science time today, and have been working on the new Intelligence Design Lab program that accomplishes what you are asking for. I'm now incorporating the latest ideas that were formed at this and the Kurzweil Accelerating Intelligence forum and from more recent newsworthy research. I'm now giving the new even more functionally colorful critter its eyes back, so that it may see the light!
A theory becomes "accepted" by being found useful. It's as simple as that.
There is no substitute for being where the people who program AI and cognitive models including (not just for biology) math-fractals with a model of your own for others to get ideas from, for their models. That is why you are also being answered with what cognitive scientists and others want to see, that I'm now programming. The model and theory being useful and not much of an issue anymore speaks for itself, where science is truly spoken therefore can be understood...
Question... how can you write code to explain something that you can't explain using words?
That is an awesome question. Seeing I made to to where I at least wanted to be by today on the model will answer that, then get back to work on it.
Having to program a model tests whether what is being talked about in words works as well as the words make it seem. Many times I have an idea that sounds like it has to work, but when programmed I find out it has to be another way.
The fate of the new thermodynamic theory with the complex calculus equations that has cognitive scientists wondering what it’s good for was ultimately determined by how well it makes a working model. In that case the balls that bounce a certain way and other models became categorized as a “Spherical Cow” that only works in a vacuum. It makes perfect sense to physicists but their model did not help increase the milk production of the farmer’s cows. I still see what the paper is saying much the same way as the model I am programming, so I’m not that negative, but discovering the way the models work alike would not change anything. What I see in the new research is a more William Dembski way of starting with the outcomes of an intelligent process, not its circuit that wires it up to motor/muscles with confidence/hedonic and such.
In cognitive science, systems biology and other fields this theory covers what matters is how well it works when programmed. It’s nice to say something beautiful that makes sense in another theory like “forged by the hammer of natural selection” but that does not explain how to program virtual living things, therefore it does not make any sense at all in this theory even though it does in other. The paradigms are completely different. There are no EA/GA’s to be found in ID there are instead Intelligence Design Labs for many things, which all use the same core circuit/algorithm. That’s why I earlier mentioned the ID model dusting EA/GA models where theory must pertain to cognitive models instead. The difference is even what led to the latest comment for the ID Lab at Planet Source Code that expected a GA which this model is not. It did though give me a chance to finally thank Ian (and others who might want to know I’m working on the next from this forum) for such a welcoming email a couple of New Year’s ago when entering a state of depression from all the battle since it appearing there that Thanksgiving to help make that holiday bright in a way that takes a politically tormenting theory like this to make possible. What a roller coaster that was and I’m glad to be over its first hills, where the ride loses the gravity that keeps it going.
Even though the design of the critter in the model is simple it avoids becoming a Spherical Cow by including real-world challenges like reversing thrust just right to stop in the right place then stay there, along with eye, antennae, interoceptive motor/muscle, taste/touch sensilla, and other sensory of a living thing. Past that modeling point it’s just getting fancy with details that are like trying to make a robot more intelligent by giving a nicer paint-job.
What is most is useful is reducing down to what is most important, which then applies to new sciences cognitive science never connected to before. But to apply it you first have to be able to see the model as a Sesame Street to the Dinosaur Train that none the less has what does in fact have to be there or be iffy whether one could make a Watson from that after adding all the complexities that human vocal motor systems and internet’s worth of knowledge present to the modeling problem.
My constantly asking for anyone’s better model is not the insult it might seem that’s because I’m used to comparing them. That’s how anyone who has to actually program something intelligent weighs the merit of what comes around to explain how intelligence works, which includes Ray and others working on a next generation Google-brain. To them, the model I program is like they switched TV channel to PBS and found that Sesame Street now has a simplified IBM Watson even helping to explain what a hypothesis is. It’s not anything new as far as how the best models of intelligence work, but is still novel.
I don’t mind being K-12 in comparison to state of the art human level intelligence that others model. Not having to compete is expected where a model has the essence of what their models already have in it. It’s no surprise the model I have been studying predicted a “guess” to test true or false (hypothesis) is absolutely required or the system will not be intelligent as is needed to win a most difficult game show against humans who know the game well.
The ID model helps eliminate guesswork as to what is most vitally important to have in any cognitive model, which is good to know when working on more complex ones possible from that. It does not send anyone back to the drawing board, instead has ideas to help conceptualize what they already have going on in the system from that starting point. What might change includes how others describe how their creations work to the general public in block-flow diagrams with a RAM shown like in an electronics schematic in the middle with confidence gauged pleasure seeking hedonic (system) on top of that which forms hypotheses from which comes even science that senses internet data. This helps simplify an already complex system needing to be somehow drawn out for an illustration that boils down to the same thing, even where differently drawn out another way.
It’s useful to compare notes with a model designed for the other end of the complexity scale, for ideas to help sort out the complexity others end up with on their end. Where all is going well you expect what there is now, no objection from anyone in the area of science that is most impacted by the model and theory, cognitive science. That requires having a model that fills a nifty niche that does other things besides that like help make cognitive science less ignored in public schools and outside the classroom like in this forum for another theory, that is not so computer model driven and where modeled needs an EA/GA model not an ID Lab. So there is no scientific conflict with evolutionary biology, even though I at times say the ID model dusts the other is something else. It is fair to say that where good old Darwinian theory works fine for putting lineages together then might as well leave good enough alone. Paleontology doesn’t have to change things all around for ID theory, it’s just there for the more cognitive related problems needing to be solved, where you have to start somewhere and keeping it simple before getting into how the whole human brain works is a plus even for a paleontologist.
Programming break over! Back to finishing the eyes. Which reminds to say that no Quack I have to stay on this track, but the latest protest at PSC but model still there with it not going past that is all you really need to hold you in what happens in feedback, where it ends then that's it issue all over for good. But in keeping the model in-spirit with what it in culture expresses it needs to somehow be cotton-eyed with a glowing screen like this:
Wii Workouts - Just Dance - Cotton Eye Joe
or Just Dance Wii - Rednex - Cotton Eye Joe
Is there some certain color or property like "pastel" that it needs to bling what Cotton Eye Joe would have to make their eyes cottony? Inside at the center and outside around it maybe lash sensilla to sense with like compound eyes do have and should look like eyelashes where added to the 2D model? I'm at a loss on what it needs to be as cute as Joe was, so all are welcome to set me straight on how that's accomplished in cyberspace using basic geometry.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Nomad
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 30 2013,10:29)There is no substitute for being where the people who program AI and cognitive models including (not just for biology) math-fractals with a model of your own for others to get ideas from, for their models. That is why you are also being answered with what cognitive scientists and others want to see, that I'm now programming. The model and theory being useful and not much of an issue anymore speaks for itself, where science is truly spoken therefore can be understood...
And those people are totally on board with using their cognitive science concepts to describe the behavior of individual molecules, right?
There's something that I'm trying to get at here that you're either missing, or are trying very hard to ignore. You've worked yourself into a corner. You claim to have spent decades developing this concept. You've recently claimed that you should be paid for your work on the subject.
But when pressed for details, all you can do is cite the work of others. Now you and I both know that these others don't support your notion at all, models of complex emergent systems do not apply to something that's about as simple as you can get. At least I hope you know that. But let's pretend that they fully support you, that they've been building models of molecular intelligence all this time. They really are the experts in molecular intelligence that you claim support you every time you're questioned.
So then it's their work, not yours. You've got nothing. You're trying to steal their work and pass it off as your own. You're a thief, and the only lawsuit in sight should be against you for plagiarism.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 30 2013,10:29)There is no substitute for being where the people who program AI and cognitive models including (not just for biology) math-fractals with a model of your own for others to get ideas from, for their models. That is why you are also being answered with what cognitive scientists and others want to see, that I'm now programming. The model and theory being useful and not much of an issue anymore speaks for itself, where science is truly spoken therefore can be understood...
And those people are totally on board with using their cognitive science concepts to describe the behavior of individual molecules, right?
There's something that I'm trying to get at here that you're either missing, or are trying very hard to ignore. You've worked yourself into a corner. You claim to have spent decades developing this concept. You've recently claimed that you should be paid for your work on the subject.
But when pressed for details, all you can do is cite the work of others. Now you and I both know that these others don't support your notion at all, models of complex emergent systems do not apply to something that's about as simple as you can get. At least I hope you know that. But let's pretend that they fully support you, that they've been building models of molecular intelligence all this time. They really are the experts in molecular intelligence that you claim support you every time you're questioned.
So then it's their work, not yours. You've got nothing. You're trying to steal their work and pass it off as your own. You're a thief, and the only lawsuit in sight should be against you for plagiarism.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by NoName
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 26 2013,05:49)And FYI our financial situation that has us back to not being able to afford paying bills is causing my wife to pressure me to take serious (possibly legal) action against ones who have been funding attacks against my work while barring me from funding, or at least get completely out of this forum and stop work on the theory. Either way, your protest is a science stopper that I cannot afford, and expecting more from me is scientifically and socially irresponsible.
Paranoid schizophrenic much, Gary?
There's a much simpler, and far more likely to be true, explanation for your situation:
You're an ignorant loser who's wasted his entire life pursuing a chimera.
Note well that this is a description, not the ad hominem logical fallacy with which you have recently become obsessed.
How does it feel to have wasted your whole life?
How does it feel to have been called on it on virtually every site where you have expressed your effluent?
If you had the programming skills you pretend to, you could find work.
If you had the modeling skills you pretend to, you could find work.
Tragically, there is little to no work for obsessive-compulsives with dishonesty issues, logorrhea combined with a serious case of incoherence, and a total lack of self-awareness.
I think it would be appropriate, to say nothing of hysterically funny, were we to set up a foundation to collect your 'greatest hits' as a memorial to the awesome power of human stupidity unleashed.
But trust me on this, if nothing else. No one at all takes you or your silly "theory" seriously enough to contribute even a nickel to suppressing it. There's nothing there to suppress, which everyone has been telling you for free [modulo the cost to you of an internet connection].
No one takes your or your awesome lack of ability seriously enough to contribute even a penny to prevent you from acquiring funding. Your awesome skills in that regard, and that regard only, have been as close to demonstrating even minimal competence that you have displayed.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 26 2013,05:49)And FYI our financial situation that has us back to not being able to afford paying bills is causing my wife to pressure me to take serious (possibly legal) action against ones who have been funding attacks against my work while barring me from funding, or at least get completely out of this forum and stop work on the theory. Either way, your protest is a science stopper that I cannot afford, and expecting more from me is scientifically and socially irresponsible.
Paranoid schizophrenic much, Gary?
There's a much simpler, and far more likely to be true, explanation for your situation:
You're an ignorant loser who's wasted his entire life pursuing a chimera.
Note well that this is a description, not the ad hominem logical fallacy with which you have recently become obsessed.
How does it feel to have wasted your whole life?
How does it feel to have been called on it on virtually every site where you have expressed your effluent?
If you had the programming skills you pretend to, you could find work.
If you had the modeling skills you pretend to, you could find work.
Tragically, there is little to no work for obsessive-compulsives with dishonesty issues, logorrhea combined with a serious case of incoherence, and a total lack of self-awareness.
I think it would be appropriate, to say nothing of hysterically funny, were we to set up a foundation to collect your 'greatest hits' as a memorial to the awesome power of human stupidity unleashed.
But trust me on this, if nothing else. No one at all takes you or your silly "theory" seriously enough to contribute even a nickel to suppressing it. There's nothing there to suppress, which everyone has been telling you for free [modulo the cost to you of an internet connection].
No one takes your or your awesome lack of ability seriously enough to contribute even a penny to prevent you from acquiring funding. Your awesome skills in that regard, and that regard only, have been as close to demonstrating even minimal competence that you have displayed.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by timothya
KF posts forty listed points, each of which is a matter of debate, and then prevents anyone from commenting on them.
That must be how Right Reasoning works.
KF posts forty listed points, each of which is a matter of debate, and then prevents anyone from commenting on them.
That must be how Right Reasoning works.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Arctodus23
Quote (Woodbine @ April 25 2013,14:14)Someone kick Nick Matzke in the balls to deter him from posting over there.
People can't resist touching the poop.
<s>Kill Nick Matzke, he's been violating the rules of the evilutionist community.</s>
Quote (Woodbine @ April 25 2013,14:14)Someone kick Nick Matzke in the balls to deter him from posting over there.
People can't resist touching the poop.
<s>Kill Nick Matzke, he's been violating the rules of the evilutionist community.</s>
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 26 2013,05:49)You must first answer (or at least address) the contentions made by this theory, otherwise your prejudices led to rationalizing problems which only exist in your own mind, not reality.
And FYI our financial situation that has us back to not being able to afford paying bills is causing my wife to pressure me to take serious (possibly legal) action against ones who have been funding attacks against my work while barring me from funding, or at least get completely out of this forum and stop work on the theory. Either way, your protest is a science stopper that I cannot afford, and expecting more from me is scientifically and socially irresponsible.
Quote You must first answer (or at least address) the contentions made by this theory, otherwise your prejudices led to rationalizing problems which only exist in your own mind, not reality.
This is exactly wrong, and a big reason it's so easy to see that you not only don't understand science, you're incapable of the logical thought processes that are necessary to *do* science. *You* have to support *your own* contentions, which you have not come close to doing in a way that remotely resembles rationality.
This famous cartoon, which I might have posted earlier in the thread, illustrates your problem perfectly:
Quote And FYI our financial situation that has us back to not being able to afford paying bills is causing my wife to pressure me to take serious (possibly legal) action against ones who have been funding attacks against my work while barring me from funding, or at least get completely out of this forum and stop work on the theory. Either way, your protest is a science stopper that I cannot afford, and expecting more from me is scientifically and socially irresponsible.
Every time it looks like you couldn't possibly dig your hole any deeper you manage to do it. You now have fantasies about some nefarious forces *funding* attacks against your "theory." Wow.
Just for fun, though, why not tell us exactly what you would do with your "theory" if you had all of the funding you think you need. Tell us about your research plan (you do have one, right?) and give us a general overview of the necessary facilities, personnel and equipment you'll need. Then tell us about the test methods you've developed. You do realize, I hope, that if you have nothing more than 40 pages of gibberish and a little VB program, it's a little unreasonable to expect anyone to give you money. You also must realize that if you've feverishly struggled for years and the yield is only 40 pages of gibberish and a poorly-structured VB program, there is no reason that anyone should think that you're capable of doing the actual hard work of science.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 26 2013,05:49)You must first answer (or at least address) the contentions made by this theory, otherwise your prejudices led to rationalizing problems which only exist in your own mind, not reality.
And FYI our financial situation that has us back to not being able to afford paying bills is causing my wife to pressure me to take serious (possibly legal) action against ones who have been funding attacks against my work while barring me from funding, or at least get completely out of this forum and stop work on the theory. Either way, your protest is a science stopper that I cannot afford, and expecting more from me is scientifically and socially irresponsible.
Quote You must first answer (or at least address) the contentions made by this theory, otherwise your prejudices led to rationalizing problems which only exist in your own mind, not reality.
This is exactly wrong, and a big reason it's so easy to see that you not only don't understand science, you're incapable of the logical thought processes that are necessary to *do* science. *You* have to support *your own* contentions, which you have not come close to doing in a way that remotely resembles rationality.
This famous cartoon, which I might have posted earlier in the thread, illustrates your problem perfectly:
Quote And FYI our financial situation that has us back to not being able to afford paying bills is causing my wife to pressure me to take serious (possibly legal) action against ones who have been funding attacks against my work while barring me from funding, or at least get completely out of this forum and stop work on the theory. Either way, your protest is a science stopper that I cannot afford, and expecting more from me is scientifically and socially irresponsible.
Every time it looks like you couldn't possibly dig your hole any deeper you manage to do it. You now have fantasies about some nefarious forces *funding* attacks against your "theory." Wow.
Just for fun, though, why not tell us exactly what you would do with your "theory" if you had all of the funding you think you need. Tell us about your research plan (you do have one, right?) and give us a general overview of the necessary facilities, personnel and equipment you'll need. Then tell us about the test methods you've developed. You do realize, I hope, that if you have nothing more than 40 pages of gibberish and a little VB program, it's a little unreasonable to expect anyone to give you money. You also must realize that if you've feverishly struggled for years and the yield is only 40 pages of gibberish and a poorly-structured VB program, there is no reason that anyone should think that you're capable of doing the actual hard work of science.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Nomad @ April 25 2013,23:21) Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 25 2013,23:03) Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 25 2013,15:32)Gary might find this useful:
Everyone in this forum is OK with this?
A "theory" is a fact with evidence behind it that has been repeatedly confirmed and a "fact" is essentially the same thing but may be modified or even discarded tomorrow?
I'm mostly okay with it, but would have put emphasis on phrasing things differently. Fact is closer to "single data point". If my thermometer says it's 62 degrees outside, that's a fact. The color temperature of a CFL bulb I just installed in a hall light? That's a fact.
The explanation behind the climate processes that resulted in the temperature being 62 degrees? That trends towards theory. The concept of black body radiation that is used to come up with the measurement of the color temperature comes from a larger body of knowledge explaining how light works. That again is the realm of theory.
I have to consider it another of the usual quote-mined redefinitions for hypothesis, theory and fact which were invented to stop the Theory of Intelligent Design, even though such redefinitions would stop all new theories from ever being written.
Control freaks love definitions that cripple scientific progress, and their submissive flock of sheeple love to follow them, which is why none in this forum said anything about it.
Quote (Nomad @ April 25 2013,23:21)
Read it again, you missed a rather important distinction. Theory is EXPLANATION, it's the HOW. A fact is a correct observation.
The only question I have is whether Jim specially made that in order to demonstrate how easy it is to misled a forum like this one.
Can you show me where it says "it's the HOW" a phenomenon works? Where do you see that in their definition for what a theory is? Or did you ignore the rather glaring errors and make inferences from the word "explanation" in order to rationalize it as a viable definition?
Quote (Nomad @ April 25 2013,23:21)
As to the point at hand, I'd like to see HOW an explanation of various words used in the field of science can be perceived as an insult used in an ad hominem. You think "you're part of the problem" stated towards people that abuse scientific terms is an insult?
I don't think you want to understand this, but I'll take a stab at it. If I say "your understanding of scientific terms is wrong because you're an idiot", that's an ad hominem. Saying that you're an idiot because you refuse to understand basic terms and persist in using the wrong terms after being corrected isn't. It may be accurate to call it an insult, but the fact remains that you've been demonstrated to be incorrect.
And I'll say it again, the fact that you're avoiding discussing the way in which you're wrong by focusing on a dictionary definition and stressing the part about avoiding addressing the points in contention is amazing. You owe at least a half a dozen people here new irony meters.
You must first answer (or at least address) the contentions made by this theory, otherwise your prejudices led to rationalizing problems which only exist in your own mind, not reality.
And FYI our financial situation that has us back to not being able to afford paying bills is causing my wife to pressure me to take serious (possibly legal) action against ones who have been funding attacks against my work while barring me from funding, or at least get completely out of this forum and stop work on the theory. Either way, your protest is a science stopper that I cannot afford, and expecting more from me is scientifically and socially irresponsible.
Quote (Nomad @ April 25 2013,23:21) Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 25 2013,23:03) Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 25 2013,15:32)Gary might find this useful:
Everyone in this forum is OK with this?
A "theory" is a fact with evidence behind it that has been repeatedly confirmed and a "fact" is essentially the same thing but may be modified or even discarded tomorrow?
I'm mostly okay with it, but would have put emphasis on phrasing things differently. Fact is closer to "single data point". If my thermometer says it's 62 degrees outside, that's a fact. The color temperature of a CFL bulb I just installed in a hall light? That's a fact.
The explanation behind the climate processes that resulted in the temperature being 62 degrees? That trends towards theory. The concept of black body radiation that is used to come up with the measurement of the color temperature comes from a larger body of knowledge explaining how light works. That again is the realm of theory.
I have to consider it another of the usual quote-mined redefinitions for hypothesis, theory and fact which were invented to stop the Theory of Intelligent Design, even though such redefinitions would stop all new theories from ever being written.
Control freaks love definitions that cripple scientific progress, and their submissive flock of sheeple love to follow them, which is why none in this forum said anything about it.
Quote (Nomad @ April 25 2013,23:21)
Read it again, you missed a rather important distinction. Theory is EXPLANATION, it's the HOW. A fact is a correct observation.
The only question I have is whether Jim specially made that in order to demonstrate how easy it is to misled a forum like this one.
Can you show me where it says "it's the HOW" a phenomenon works? Where do you see that in their definition for what a theory is? Or did you ignore the rather glaring errors and make inferences from the word "explanation" in order to rationalize it as a viable definition?
Quote (Nomad @ April 25 2013,23:21)
As to the point at hand, I'd like to see HOW an explanation of various words used in the field of science can be perceived as an insult used in an ad hominem. You think "you're part of the problem" stated towards people that abuse scientific terms is an insult?
I don't think you want to understand this, but I'll take a stab at it. If I say "your understanding of scientific terms is wrong because you're an idiot", that's an ad hominem. Saying that you're an idiot because you refuse to understand basic terms and persist in using the wrong terms after being corrected isn't. It may be accurate to call it an insult, but the fact remains that you've been demonstrated to be incorrect.
And I'll say it again, the fact that you're avoiding discussing the way in which you're wrong by focusing on a dictionary definition and stressing the part about avoiding addressing the points in contention is amazing. You owe at least a half a dozen people here new irony meters.
You must first answer (or at least address) the contentions made by this theory, otherwise your prejudices led to rationalizing problems which only exist in your own mind, not reality.
And FYI our financial situation that has us back to not being able to afford paying bills is causing my wife to pressure me to take serious (possibly legal) action against ones who have been funding attacks against my work while barring me from funding, or at least get completely out of this forum and stop work on the theory. Either way, your protest is a science stopper that I cannot afford, and expecting more from me is scientifically and socially irresponsible.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Alan Fox
Quote (The whole truth @ April 25 2013,23:43) Quote (Alan Fox @ April 26 2013,02:09)Hi Franklin *waves back*; Glad you're joining the experiment.
Kairosfocus, I see has addressed a long, faux-indignant screed here. He still omits to include a meaningful definition of CSI.
Amid all the bluster, Elsberry and Shallit remain unanswered.
F/N and for record.
Uh oh, you've gone and done it, Alan. gordo is going to take "strong measures", which is sure to mean that Mr. Leathers is being limbered up. Plus, he's going to headline the case, for record no doubt, which means yet another 10,000+ word screed filled with the same old shit that gordo has spewed 10,000+ times.
Does anyone know where there's a good bomb shelter? I'm concerned about exposure to deadly tard radiation when gordo's head explodes.
Strong measures = comments [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/creationism/for-record-afs-insistent-strawman-misrepresentation-tactics-and-false-accusation-of-fraud-
csi-is-a-bogus-concept-so-it-would-not-figure-in-anyones-calculations-exposed/]off![/URL]
Quote (The whole truth @ April 25 2013,23:43) Quote (Alan Fox @ April 26 2013,02:09)Hi Franklin *waves back*; Glad you're joining the experiment.
Kairosfocus, I see has addressed a long, faux-indignant screed here. He still omits to include a meaningful definition of CSI.
Amid all the bluster, Elsberry and Shallit remain unanswered.
F/N and for record.
Uh oh, you've gone and done it, Alan. gordo is going to take "strong measures", which is sure to mean that Mr. Leathers is being limbered up. Plus, he's going to headline the case, for record no doubt, which means yet another 10,000+ word screed filled with the same old shit that gordo has spewed 10,000+ times.
Does anyone know where there's a good bomb shelter? I'm concerned about exposure to deadly tard radiation when gordo's head explodes.
Strong measures = comments [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/creationism/for-record-afs-insistent-strawman-misrepresentation-tactics-and-false-accusation-of-fraud-
csi-is-a-bogus-concept-so-it-would-not-figure-in-anyones-calculations-exposed/]off![/URL]
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Febble
Only 5,681, and quite a lot of that is title:
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/creationism/for-record-afs-insistent-strawman-misrepresentation-tactics-and-false-accusation-of-fraud-
csi-is-a-bogus-concept-so-it-would-not-figure-in-anyones-calculations-exposed/]FOR RECORD: AF’s insistent strawman misrepresentation tactics and false accusation of fraud (“CSI is a bogus concept so it would not figure in anyone’s calculations . . . “) exposed . . .[/URL]
Comments are closed.
Only 5,681, and quite a lot of that is title:
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/creationism/for-record-afs-insistent-strawman-misrepresentation-tactics-and-false-accusation-of-fraud-
csi-is-a-bogus-concept-so-it-would-not-figure-in-anyones-calculations-exposed/]FOR RECORD: AF’s insistent strawman misrepresentation tactics and false accusation of fraud (“CSI is a bogus concept so it would not figure in anyone’s calculations . . . “) exposed . . .[/URL]
Comments are closed.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by The whole truth
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 26 2013,02:09)Hi Franklin *waves back*; Glad you're joining the experiment.
Kairosfocus, I see has addressed a long, faux-indignant screed here. He still omits to include a meaningful definition of CSI.
Amid all the bluster, Elsberry and Shallit remain unanswered.
F/N and for record.
Uh oh, you've gone and done it, Alan. gordo is going to take "strong measures", which is sure to mean that Mr. Leathers is being limbered up. Plus, he's going to headline the case, for record no doubt, which means yet another 10,000+ word screed filled with the same old shit that gordo has spewed 10,000+ times.
Does anyone know where there's a good bomb shelter? I'm concerned about exposure to deadly tard radiation when gordo's head explodes.
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 26 2013,02:09)Hi Franklin *waves back*; Glad you're joining the experiment.
Kairosfocus, I see has addressed a long, faux-indignant screed here. He still omits to include a meaningful definition of CSI.
Amid all the bluster, Elsberry and Shallit remain unanswered.
F/N and for record.
Uh oh, you've gone and done it, Alan. gordo is going to take "strong measures", which is sure to mean that Mr. Leathers is being limbered up. Plus, he's going to headline the case, for record no doubt, which means yet another 10,000+ word screed filled with the same old shit that gordo has spewed 10,000+ times.
Does anyone know where there's a good bomb shelter? I'm concerned about exposure to deadly tard radiation when gordo's head explodes.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Alan Fox
Hi Franklin *waves back*; Glad you're joining the experiment.
Kairosfocus, I see has addressed a long, faux-indignant screed here. He still omits to include a meaningful definition of CSI.
Amid all the bluster, Elsberry and Shallit remain unanswered.
F/N and for record.
Hi Franklin *waves back*; Glad you're joining the experiment.
Kairosfocus, I see has addressed a long, faux-indignant screed here. He still omits to include a meaningful definition of CSI.
Amid all the bluster, Elsberry and Shallit remain unanswered.
F/N and for record.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Quack @ April 26 2013,02:35)Will Gary find a new love?
Judge for yourself:
Physicist Proposes New Way To Think About Intelligence
I'll be keeping the paper in mind when testing the temporal dynamics of my models, but I have found no other use for it.
Quote (Quack @ April 26 2013,02:35)Will Gary find a new love?
Judge for yourself:
Physicist Proposes New Way To Think About Intelligence
I'll be keeping the paper in mind when testing the temporal dynamics of my models, but I have found no other use for it.
Categories: AE Public BB
