AE Public BB
Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 16 2014,12:05)Assuming the board has the right info - Happy Birthday to Gary!
Happy birthday*, Gary!
* assuming the planet you live on has a 365.24-day year...
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 09 2014,20:08)I thought I should give a progress report on the software.
Why? No one here cares about your Tardagotchi.
Everyone but Gary knows what will happen next.
Quote (Learned Hand @ Jan. 09 2014,18:23)More general science than just anti-creationism, but let me plug <a href="violentmetaphors.com" target="_blank">Violent Metaphors</a> - "thoughts from the intersection of science, pseudoscience, and conflict."
Link not working, but this?
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 09 2014,20:26)My scientific mission now has me in a global computer forum with a scientific theory that (according to what was said) over 99% of scientists agreed had to be pseudoscience. I'm again inviting trouble like crazy again, with something that was meant to scientifically be, because it's there (in science awaiting more detailed explanation). It's again good clean science fun, but what it is makes big waves off in some directions, where who knows what will happen next..
<cue mission impossible theme>
Man you just can't buy good acid like that any more.
Man you just can buy good acid like that any more.
Quote (jeffox @ Jan. 08 2014,13:12) Quote Back in the Ben Stein movie days I let the NCSE know that they needed to change tactics, not be polar opposite to the other political extreme, but nothing changed. I do not want to see them lose all their credibility, but they're only helping make it so that they are no better than the worse in this forum. It's like the two enable each other. Where the NCSE long ago fixed their Expelled Exposed (making it more convincing as well) then went from there, what goes on in this forum would not now be accepted behavior. It would have then been easy for me to find help maybe from one of the many local colleges, where they end up in the science news for novel cell models, instead of their having to worry about their careers by getting involved in something good like that.
Why not get a job and then actually go to one of those colleges and LEARN SOMETHING? Then, maybe you'll realize how wrong you are about the politicization (and polarization) of the NCSE, and how thier scientific 'snobbery' is necessary to screen out the nonsense of the cranks and crackpots that you support. Until then, please stop blaming us for your own misfortune - it's been based on YOUR OWN DECISIONS AND ACTIONS, not ours.
Of course, continuing your usual idiot ravings in here will still result in scoffing and outright laughter on our part. We've already told you (many times) how to solve your problems. Not listening isn't our fault.
AFTER 42 YEARS OF A CONSTANT STRUGGLE BETWEEN REALITY AND MYTH; FACT V.
FICTION, GREED V. TRUTH, THE SMITHSONIAN FINALLY DROPPED IT`S ASININE
RELIGION. AFTER HEARING THAT MAN IS OLDER THAN COAL, AND THE SMITHSONIAN
IS NOTHING BUT A SCAM TO SILENCE THE TRUTH.
SMITHSONIAN SPOKESMAN RICHARD DAWKINS HAD THIS TO SAY, WHILE FILING FOR
Dammit. I never thought this will happen. Burn the books everybody.
THRINAXODON HAS RECENTLY FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE SMITHSONIAN FOR
YEARS OF SUPPRESSION OF VALID RESEARCH.
RICHARD LEAKEY IS BURSTING IN TEARS AS ALL HIS "SPECIMENS" ARE TURNING
INTO RUBBLE. HE SAID, "This brings me great money!!!"
Donate to Thrinaxodon via email at biol gmail com
BASTARDS THAT WENT BANKRUPT:
Anthropological Association of Ireland (AAI)
Anthropology Southern Africa (ASnA)
Association of Social Anthropologists UK & Commonwealth (ASA)
European Association of Social Anthropologists (EASA)
International Association for Southeast European Anthropology (InASEA)
International Society for Ethnology and Folklore / Société
Internationale d´Ethnologie et de Folklore (SIEF)
International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences
Latin American Association / Asociación Latinoamericana de
Pan African Anthropology Association (PAAA)
Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research
Members: National associations
ArgentinaArgentina (Colegio de Graduados en Antropología de la
República Argentina - CGA)
Australia Australia (Australian Anthopological Society - AAS)
BrazilBrazil (Associaçõ Brasileira de Antropologia - ABA)
CanadaCanada (Canadian Anthropology Society / Société canadienne
anthropologie - CASCA)
Czech RepublicCzech Republic (Czech Association for Social
Anthropology - CASA)
ChileChile (Colegio de Antropólogos de Chile – CAC)
FinlandFinland (Finnish Anthropological Society - SAS)
FranceFrance (Association Française d’Ethnologie et d’Anthropologie
France France (Association Française des Anthropologues - AFA)
France France (Association pour la Recherche en Anthropologie
Sociale - APRAS)
GermanyGermany (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Völkerkunde - DGV)
Hong KongHong Kong (Hong Kong Anthropological Society - HKAS)
India India (Indian Anthropological Association - IAA)
IndiaIndia (Indian Anthropological Society, Calcutta)
IsraelIsrael (Israeli Anthropological Association - IAA)
ItalyItaly (Istituto Italiano di Antropologia - ISItA)
Japan Japan (Japanese Society of Cultural Anthropology - JASCA)
LatviaLatvia (Latvijas Antropologu Biedriba - LAB)
Mexico Mexico (Colegio de Etnólogos y Antropólogos Sociales - CEAS)
New ZealandNew Zealand (Association of Social Anthropologists of
New Zealand/Aoteroa - ASA-NZ)
NorwayNorway (Norsk Antropologisk Forening - NAF)
phillipinesPhilippines (Anthropological Association of the
Philippines / Ugnayang Pang-Aghamtao, Inc - UGAT)
Poland Poland (Polskie Towarszystwo Ludoznawcze / Polish
Ethnological Society - PTL)
Portugal Portugal (Associaçõ Portuguesa de Antropologia - APA)
Russia Russia (Russian Association of Anthropologists and
Ethnologists - RAEE)
CataloniaSpain (Catalania) (Institut Catalá d'Antropologia - ICA)
SpainSpain (Asociación de Antropología de Castilla y León - AAC-LMK)
SwedenSweden (Anthropological Association of Sweden - SANT)
TaiwanTaiwan (Taiwan Society for Anthropology and Ethnology - TSAE)
TunisiaTunisia (Tunisian Association of Anthropology /
L’Association Tunisienne d’Anthropologie - TAA)
UKUK (Royal Anthropological Institute - RAI)
USUSA (American Anthropological Association – AAA)
EVIDENCE THAT HUMANS LIVED IN THE DEVONIAN:
THRINAXODON ONLY HAD THIS TO SAY:
"I..I...I...Can't believe it. This completely disproved Darwinian
THE BASTARDS AT THE SMITHSONIAN, AND THE LEAKEY FOUNDATION ARE ERODING
THRINAXODON IS NOW ON TWITTER.
From longtime UD Denizen JGuy, we have a Christian snuff film, wherein an atheist professor is tortured and murdered (apparently justifiably):
Quote (Woodbine @ Aug. 07 2013,06:26)
MAN AS OLD AS FROGS!
OGREMKV RECENTLY SHOT IN THE FOOT AFTER CAUGHT RAIDING THRINAXODON'S HOUSE FOR THE FOSSILS!
Thrinaxodon caught Ogre, then pulled out his glock and said, "get the Hell away from them you bitch!" Thrinaxodon then called the cops, only for Mkv to run, a subsequent gun battle happened.
Then he burned the fossils, only for God to come out strike him with lightening. He was arrested for arson, and robbery. Take that, evolutionists dumbasses.
I posted the last reply while in a rush. I have been working at my paying day-job, and want to get back to the IDLab.
I had great luck, right away, with a super-simple response to shock (adding amygdala). It's most cruel though when the feeder is in the middle of the stationary shock-zone. It ends up going back and forth, while trying other angles of approach, while occasionally getting too close then gets zapped back again by the automatic reflex. It will though after awhile in a sense commit to going for it. Poor critter then zitters around in the field until it finally gets the food pellet.
It's a very complex behavior pattern. Not “robotic” movement that would have it repeating a bumping motion that sends it back the same amount. You can tell there is some kind of temporal thought process going on, not mechanized behavior, which helps make it so that after the last feeder left is in the middle of the invisible (to it) shock-zone it gets sadistically humorous, watching it slowly inch closer, then back again, then charge and stop, then finally goes straight in, and you can tell it doesn't like that.
The hippocampi still don't seem to be doing much if anything, but I did not expect them to. That might change though, by adding one bit to memory data that gets set when shocked, that is recalled when it again enters the same place (but not yet shocked) so it beforehand has a signal to navigate away to other places. But may find a way to override that too and end up enduring the shock, for the food.
I thought I should give a progress report on the software. The new Lab already has a rudimentary amygdala worth uploading to Planet Source Code. Just minor things left to go. I would like to have the hippocampi noticeably working, and may try adding a data bit to recall getting a shock. It's relatively easy, and adds something the real brain has, that does the same with neurons that store sensory signals in a memory that maps/addresses out a physical area. The physical area is there, but has no data stored in it. It can be expected to not do anything yet, but I'm checking, just in case that alone does add something noticeable.
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 03 2014,16:45)Maybe he spent too much time in engineering/programming land and this is all some weird "theory of operation", as in "The actuator A is rotated by the gear B and releases cog C allowing platen D to slide forward".
Except that, instead of a mechanical system, he's just making shit up.
That does seem to be the heart and soul of it.
Maybe he spent too much time in engineering/programming land and this is all some weird "theory of operation", as in "The actuator A is rotated by the gear B and releases cog C allowing platen D to slide forward".
Except that, instead of a mechanical system, he's just making shit up.
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Jan. 03 2014,10:42)Martinez has also claimed he is currently writing a book that disproves evolution, once and for all... (snip)
Him too? Won't he have to duke it out with Paul Nelson for bookstore space? I mean, eventually...
Yo, Goo Goo! You need to grasp better straws.
Gads, whatta hoot!
Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 03 2014,12:41)It's no longer what appears on page 1 of this thread. But hey, arrows going one way or the other, salmon dying after laying their eggs (or, for the species that don't all die, immediately bugging off) versus defending their young, things supposedly being self-similar even when they lack actual physical similarities, it's all water under your bridge, right?
This is the first one I put together, a relatively long time ago, that has long since been updated by the other much more detailed illustration I just posted:
Gary, aside from your mere use of the term, what justifies calling your work a 'theory of intelligent design'? Particularly, what justifies using the word 'design'?
There is no discussion of design or designer in your work.
There is no process of design.
There is (the illusion of) emergence from level to level and a (faked up) picture of reciprocal causation (another badly flawed phrase that does not mean what you need it to mean for you to use it as you do). There is no intelligent design. Nor any 'unintelligent' design.
So what justifies lumping yourself in with the design proponents? What warrants calling this "theory" by a name that suggests that it in any way relates to design?
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 01 2014,00:50)...
This is why you need to understand, and use, a proper version control system, Gary.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2014,13:12)To help better reflect the mindset Guenter explains:
Depending on the direction in which one reads the next sentence, intelligence is a fractal property or/and an emergent property: ...Intelligent ecologies contain intelligent populations,which contain intelligent organisms, which contain intelligent cells, which contain intelligent compartments, which contain...and so forth.
I added detail to the second paragraph of the Introduction to the theory. And the first paragraph should be a little easier to conceptualize:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level combine to create another (Logos, animating) level of intelligence for it to control at the next, which results in emergent self-similar entities each systematically in their own image, likeness.
This causative process begins at the atomic behavior of matter level, where force-guided molecular self-assembly causes emergence of molecular intelligence, which causes emergence of cellular intelligence, which causes emergence of multicellular intelligence. The systematics of an intelligence system always exists in itself, to self-model from. There is no “reinventing the wheel” the same system works well at any intelligent causation level. As in a fractal, a systematic algorithm/process has properties that inherently causes the emergence of fractal-similar designs at successive size scales. Each intelligence level may have one or more compartments/lobes/chromosomes/territories working together as one “brain” to control one body, entity.
I think Alfred Wallace would like it better that way too.
It used to read:
Quote The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby a collective of intelligent entities learn how to collectively combine to create a new intelligent entity, at one or more levels of increasingly complex organization, producing emergent self-similar entities systematically in their own image, likeness.
This causative process begins at the atomic behavior of matter level, where force-guided molecular self-assembly causes emergence of molecular intelligence, which causes emergence of cellular intelligence, which causes emergence of multicellular intelligence. As in a fractal, a systematic algorithm/process produces multiple emergent fractal-similar designs at successive size scales.
No, Gary, this explains nothing about your 'theory' nor its many flaws, errors, and contradictions.
'Intelligence is an emergent property'? Why, how stunningly original! No one has ever thought that before! [/snark]
Problem is, your 'theory' neither discusses nor explains emergence. What emerges? From what? And most especially how?
Yes, I know, you think your tiresome diagram actually 'explains' all that, but of course, it does not.
Nor does your 'theory' present any notion of 'design' -- only a pathetic and limited approach to at best a single facet of intelligence that remains entirely unable to perform or account for design.
Your notion of 'molecular intelligence' is still entirely bogus, fraudulent to the max. Likewise for your notion of 'cellular intelligence', at least in your more frequent uses.
Adding a bunch of buzzwords -- like 'fractal', which your notions aren't, and 'emergent', which your 'theory' isn't -- doesn't improve your 'theory' in the slightest.
It is still a heap of words thrown together because they sound impressive and they give you a tingly feeling of self-importance.
It's not the intro to your 'theory' that needs work, badly flawed though it is. It is the 'theory' itself, the body of the work, that desperately needs to be discarded, reconceptualized, supported with evidence, and written with an eye to referencing both the evidence and supporting work you've relied upon.
It would help if you understood the meanings of the words you abuse. It would then help if you would use the standard and accepted meanings, or at least pointed out, and justified, where and how you've modified the standard definitions and why.
But of course, all that requires some understanding of science, and it is now abundantly clear that you are clueless. You know just barely enough to go wandering around through works you find or are referred to, cherry-picking words and phrases to add to the crow's collection of bright and shiny terms you wrongly think constitute a theory.
Once again, if you actually had a theory, you would be able to use it to explain phenomena commonly considered to be intelligent acts. You can't. You would be able to make predictions of evidence yet to be found. You can't.
Your 'theory' explains nothing, predicts nothing, and contradicts itself internally and contradicts the work of the fields you claim to be building on.
Epic fail, you miserable pathetic little fraud.