Corny stoll his webpage images from somewhere:
And does Ken ham show up in one of the slides?
It would still be appallingly anti-semantic.
Did you see the latest?
"Darwin Scholars" an affordable on-line course offered by none other than Corny his own self.
$1600 for the full set!
Holy Shamoly, he's become a televangelist!
I'll be happy to award that Sentence of the Week, but first we'll need to find a group of Theoretical Grammarians who can translate it into Standard American English.
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 02 2014,21:51) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 02 2014,23:00)From the NCSE thread:
Gary Gaulin • 5 days ago
I'm wondering whether you believe this is a testable scientific theory or "God in the gaps" religion:
Wishing you luck!
Wesley Elsberry Gary Gaulin • 9 hours ago
It's incoherent, self-contradictory word salad. See http://tinyurl.com/p7ye4n8....p7ye4n8
I responded to a similar entry by Gary at a Smithsonian online article:
Check it out for how Gary responds to anything other than instant adulation. (The start of that can be seen happening once again here.)
Synopsis: Gary's code doesn't implement any of Arnold Trehub's actual neural models, nor does Gary's code implement anything beyond a simulation premised on David Heiserman's "beta"-class robot, though Gary's text relies on Heiserman's use of "educated guess" ("good guess" in Gaulinese) that Heiserman reserved for his "gamma"-class robots, a long step beyond what Gary so far publicly offers code for. In response to criticism, Gary will, on past form, denigrate any critic's credentials (though Gary has not much himself so far as I know); claim that critics must be dissing the sources Gary cites rather than Gary's bizarre mash-up of them; thoroughly misunderstand and misrepresent sources (including ones he himself cites); bizarrely claim that unless someone can offer something better for establishing the result he wishes his code and text might establish, his work thus is supported; pretend that his code is biologically plausible for things it can't possibly be considered to approach in any biologically plausible manner; and project every fault he has onto his interlocutors.
The origin of intelligence may be Gary's favorite topic, but I think it's far less likely that anyone else is going to have "listening to Gary go on about the origin of intelligence" be one of their favorite things. In order to bypass evolutionary hypotheses, it looks to me that Gary seeks to establish intelligent action at logically prior, lower levels, those of molecules and cells. In my experience, any data that does not accord with this idee fixe' is relentlessly rejected or disputed by Gary. Gary certainly has shown no compunction in dismissing relevant work on the evolution of intelligence.
Do be careful, though; Gary did note that he consulted with a Discovery Institute lawyer [Casey Luskin] prior to engaging the "After the Bar Closes" forum to figure out when to sue someone in online discussion. See http://tinyurl.com/pnjnj5x....pnjnj5x
Gary Gaulin Wesley Elsberry • 7 hours ago
Hi again Wesley. Hopefully you're done giving your forum shameless plugs. Yes I mentioned additional information being in this thread in the Smithsonian Institution thread but that was your fault for making me need to link here after that. I now need a direct link back, for readers to see what you're trying to talk about:
For "interlocutors" the best conspiracy theory I can come up with is Rev Theory as per KCFS forum lore the black hole sun producing (& toes in the sand) "Lucky Lady" is stealthy Kathy Martin whose talent for giving the press exactly what they wanted caused legendary hoopla that got folks talking science now here we are with the angel story being continued, but I don't know where. It's as though the video is tempting to rev up some theory by leaving a key around for anyone to try out. It must make no sense to you but Stephanie might still get it:
Wesley Elsberry Gary Gaulin • 22 minutes ago
I appreciate Gary following up to make clear to everyone that my statements are right on the money. Gary's response to my description of his screed as incoherent word salad is, predictably, more incoherent word salad.
And even where Gary manages to make brief contact with coherency, his accusation that I am "spamming", he confirms my statement:
"and project every fault [Gary] has onto his interlocutors."
It's particularly amusing as Gary's initial forays both here and at the Smithsonian site immediately link to the PDF of his screed. Here, Gary seemed particularly strained in coming up with an excuse to put in his link. It does demonstrate that Gary's accusations about others are the clearest window into his own soul.
For myself, I'm not particular about what archive of interaction informs the reader. If Gary has over 3000 posts at some other site, he need merely let me know where that might be, and I'll certainly add it as a resource for those who are new to Gary's ... creative ... approach to communication.
Quote For "interlocutors" the best conspiracy theory I can come up with is Rev Theory as per KCFS forum lore the black hole sun producing (& toes in the sand) "Lucky Lady" is stealthy Kathy Martin whose talent for giving the press exactly what they wanted caused legendary hoopla that got folks talking science now here we are with the angel story being continued, but I don't know where.
Sentence of the week.
I'm still very ambivalent about participating in this thread. By doing so, I'm helping to deprive a street corner of its loony.