AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: coldfirephoenix

form_srcid: coldfirephoenix

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.144.16.135

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is 54.144.16.135

form_author:

form_srcid: coldfirephoenix

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'coldfirephoenix%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2017/09/03 20:08:27, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Hello, I just made an account, because I had to comment.

I was made aware of the existence of this thread while arguing with Gaulin on reddit a while ago, I think some of you were also aware of the "discussion" going on over there, I saw it quoted here a couple of times. (This was one of mine: https://www.reddit.com/r....)

Since then, he has kinda given up on that, after absolutely everybody told him what he was doing was not science. But I was delighted to find out this was still going on in this thread, you guys are hilarious to read, and I enjoyed lurking every now and again.

But now I signed up, because I seriously can't keep up with Gary's Woo-Woo anymore. So, Gary, I would like to ask you a few straightforward questions:

You rail (rather incoherently) against the discovery institute and similar intelligent-design-proponents. Yet, your own wordsalad-"theory" still contains the same claims about "a designer", is still named after intelligent design and still has the same woo-woo about trinity of magically sentient molecules and love (?).

Could you clarify your position for me? Back when I was still correcting you (let's not pretend that it was ever a debate), you very clearly traced your "theory" back to the same roots as the discovery institute and defended their position. Did you realize that that was 100% wrong, and are distancing yourself from that now? And if so, why does your PDF-document still contain all this designer- and trinity-hogwash and basically look exactly the same?
Do you still reject evolution by natural selection in favor of your unexplained notion?

I can tell that still nothing you do is even approaching science, but beyond that, it feels that you have gotten even more incoherent.

Can anyone bring me up to speed here?

Date: 2017/09/04 13:56:46, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2017,09:33)
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 03 2017,20:08)
Can anyone bring me up to speed here?

Newest Study Material:
www.kurzweilai.net/forums/profile/gary-s-gaulin

This does nothing to answer my questions! In fact, this is about the ONE thing I said I was already sure about: that you still don't know what science even is! I am not going to feed your delusion by pretending that this a debate, much less a scientific one.

I'll try to repeat my questions as concisely as possible, and hope you will address them.

1. Does your "theory" still claim to be an alternative to the theory of evolution by natural selection?

2. Does your "theory" still assume some sort of outside intelligence that's involved in any part of the process of evolution? (With "outside", I mean intelligence OTHER than the intelligence that stems directly and exclusively from the animals brain.)

3. Am I correct in assuming you pulled a 180 in regards to the discovery institute and are now seeing them as "opposition", in contrast to seeing them as "allies", as you did before? If so, what do you see as the difference between your woowoo and theirs?

4. Back on reddit, after I tried to explain to you how the scientific method works, you have scrapped the idea of getting published in a peer reviewed journal. I never got the answer to the question as to whether that means that you accept that what you are doing is not science. Could I maybe get that answer now?



Also, quick question to everyone else: How do I edit comments? In my previous comment, I accidentally added a ")" to the end of my link, trying to fix that now.

Date: 2017/09/04 16:54:11, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2017,16:44)
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 04 2017,13:56)
I never got the answer to the question as to whether that means that you accept that what you are doing is not science. Could I maybe get that answer now?

Loaded questions deserve no answer at all.

A loaded question is a question that contains an unjustified assumption.

What exatly is the assumption here? You yourself stated that you dropped the goal to get published in peer review, but if you changed your mind again, okay, let me know, then this question does indeed become moot.

But before we get too hung up on that one question, it's the least important of them. Here are the other three again, please answer them, they are very straight forward.

1. Does your "theory" still claim to be an alternative to the theory of evolution by natural selection?

2. Does your "theory" still assume some sort of outside intelligence that's involved in any part of the process of evolution? (With "outside", I mean intelligence OTHER than the intelligence that stems directly and exclusively from the animals brain.)

3. Am I correct in assuming you pulled a 180 in regards to the discovery institute and are now seeing them as "opposition", in contrast to seeing them as "allies", as you did before? If so, what do you see as the difference between your woowoo and theirs?

Date: 2017/09/04 17:46:42, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (ChemiCat @ Sep. 04 2017,16:22)
Quote
This does nothing to answer my questions!


First rule of Gaulin's thread... Gaulin doesn't answer questions.

Second rule of Gaulin's thread... see first rule.

Haha, yeah, I remember that from his venture into reddit as well.

Not quite sure on why he does it though.
If he knows he can't answer those very basic questions, he would invariably also know that his "theory" is a bunch of nonsense, in which case it makes no sense for him to continue wasting so much time on this. No troll is THIS dedicated.

But if he thinks he can answer them, if also makes no sense from his perspective not to.

As always, Gaulin defies any and all logic and reason.

Date: 2017/09/04 17:47:18, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2017,17:23)
It's still the same model/theory and message:

theoryofid.blogspot.com/

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/study-knowing-more-doesnt-change-disbeliefs-about-science

It's neither a model nor a theory, but I guess you did answer two of those questions.

Just for the record, that was a clear "YES" on question 1 and question 2, right?

(And a complete "ignore" on questions 3 & 4, but one step at a time.)

Date: 2017/09/04 18:40:29, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2017,18:19)
If you do not have a better cognitive model to explain the basics of how intelligence works (at all known levels of biology) then you're just another scam artist who is making excuses for not being able to present one.

Nothing you have just said related to anything that was said by anyone before, so I have no idea who you are addressing right now.

It doesn't really matter though, because a)that is not how science works anyway and b)I'm not going to let you weasel out of answering even the most basic yes-or-no question by changing the topic.

So, just one more for the record: You said your "theory" and message remain unchanged. Since you previously argued against evolution by natural selection and FOR some undefined intelligence outside of the brains of animals, I take it that that means you still support those notions. Is that correct?

Date: 2017/09/04 19:44:54, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2017,19:03)
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 04 2017,18:40)
Since you previously argued against evolution by natural selection and FOR some undefined intelligence outside of the brains of animals, I take it that that means you still support those notions. Is that correct?

Show me where you believe I "argued against evolution by natural selection".

Gary:
 
Quote
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.


Quote
Natural selection based theory is not even for the phenomenon that makes living things noticeably "intelligent". And I know for a fact that you will not explain that "certain feature" either by chanting "natural selection" over and over again.


Quote
Then explain what the origin (of life?) of the very first biological systems able to qualify as intelligent according to relevant existing cognitive science models (i.e. David Heiserman's, IBM Watson, neuroscientific, cell intelligence) looked like, by instead using the model for "natural selection".



This is just sad...

And just in case this is your next argument: No, obviously you can't argue against natural selection, but not NOT argue against evolution by natural selection. The hint is right in the name...

Date: 2017/09/05 18:27:07, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote
Now the readers can see how impossible it can sometimes be to get armchair warriors like you to stick to the topic of how "intelligence" works. The goalposts keep changing to "selection" or something else.


Gary, YOU argue against natural selection in your incoherent ramblings you call a theory. In fact, it seems so central to your point that you quote this fact in your signature!  I just finished demonstrating that to you! (Not quite sure why you apparently tried to deny it in the first place, seeing how integral it is to your ill-defined notion. Anyway, it backfired big time.)



Quote
In my opinion that's where future "evolutionary science" must go, in order to explain all the things that "evolution by natural selection" was never even intended for.


You don't understand evolution. Like...demonstrably.

Quote
My priorities are with the pioneering of an emerging science, where a cognitive model is required for you to even be taken seriously.


If you actually wanted a scientific exchange about anything, you would seek peer review. But we have already been through this, and you have openly admitted to reject the very notion of peer review, because you would refuse to accept their expertise if and when they invariably reject you.
So, instead, you prefer to bother people on neurology subreddits who ignore you or tell you that you make no sense, or you waffle on with some other completely unqualified random people on the internet, and even then no one really seems to really address each other.

BUT: You are not really interested in a scientific debate, and let's be clear, no one takes you seriously. This delusion needs to stop.


Hi to everyone else, I really like your commentary, you are hilarious. (Well, so is Gary, but for very different reasons.)

Date: 2017/09/06 16:51:03, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
I fully agree, but i have to add just one thing, in regards to this bit:

Gary, it is certainly true (and obvious) that not everything has to be explained by natural selection! But: Through all your incoherent blubbering, word-salad and ranting, you keep coming back to "cognitive ability" and "intelligence". I might be wrong here, and I'm sure you don't know for sure either, but I think whatever you are trying to do has something to do with the origin of intelligence.

And in this case, YES, you absolutely need are in the domain of things that are explained by evolution by natural selection! And if you try to advocate a process that does the same thing, without it involving selection, you definitely ARE arguing against natural selection, and evolution by means of natural selection as a whole.

"Intelligence" (as a baseline) is just an expression of certain genes, just like everything else. Depending on the animal, this might be a more or less complex interaction, but everything we know about how the whole process of evolution works tells us that this is fundamentally no different than eye-color, or the height. Intelligence is not some ethereal property that somehow defies evolution.

Imagine someone saying: "I'm not arguing against the theory of gravity! I just have my own theory, that says that certain objects not floating off into space is best explained by invisible sunfairies holding them down. Therefore, my theory doesn't need to rely on random processes like gravity."

Something like this -stupid as it may be- WOULD invalidate the whole theory of gravity as it were true.

Also, it's not just that you were "ignoring" natural selection, you were clearly actively arguing AGAINST it. Look at my second and third quote from you. The third one, for example, is the classical "Well, you can't explain how x came to be by means of natural-selection, can you?"-argument from ignorance.

Date: 2017/09/06 17:04:33, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Just for the record:
When I said "I fully agree", I obviously meant N.Wells.

Gaulin is just panicking and calling everyone Trolls when he doesn't have a response :)

Date: 2017/09/06 19:46:55, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 06 2017,18:56)
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 06 2017,16:51)
"Intelligence" (as a baseline) is just an expression of certain genes, just like everything else.

You really do sound like a false-flag troll.  Only a nitwit would believe your answer explains the fundamental basics of how minds/brains work. Experienced researchers all understand that there is much more to it than that.

What do you not understand, Gary?
If you need help, we can try to clear things up and explain it in simpler terms. I know you are especially bad at this, so I will be very patient. Tell me what confuses you so badly this time.

Meanwhile, I will explain this very simply:
The evolution of intelligence in any species is closely linked to the evolution of the brain. We can show this quite easily, because we know which parts of the brainstructure handle which skills. For example: Animals with large cerebella are consistently better at fine-motor-skill-manipulation than animals with small cerebella. (Relative to the absolute size of the brain, of course.) You don't need to understand what a cerebellum is, just that it is one of those distinct parts of the brain.

Now, if we accept that how the brain is "built" is very closely linked to intelligence, we are already halfway there.

Because we also know and can show that how the brain forms is largely dependent on genetics. For some formations in the brain, we even know which genes are responsible! Isn't that neat?

Obviously, there are factors for each individual animal on how these genes express themselves. This is nothing special about intelligence either. For example, height is pretty straightforward hereditary. If your parents both are tall, you have a pretty good chance of also being above average height. BUT: If you don't get enough nutrition while growing up, you may end up only average.
In this case "nutrition" is a factor that influences how the genes for height can express themselves. They still set the baseline, but they aren't the only influence.
That doesn't mean that genes for height aren't just another evolved feature, and -depending on the environment- might heighten or lessen survival, which means they are subject to selection. The same is true for intelligence, of course.

We have absolutely no reason to believe that the genes that form our brains, work fundamentally different than the genes that determine our height, hair color or the length of our arms. There is no point in mystifying intelligence, just because it's what makes us humans special, and it's such a complex thing.

Date: 2017/09/07 14:53:31, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 06 2017,21:02)
Quote
There is no point in mystifying intelligence, just because it's what makes us humans special, and it's such a complex thing.

But does it make us special? Without a common language, we can't really get a good measure of intelligence of dolphins, crows, or octopi, with which to compare theirs to ours.

Well, at least it's our particular kind of intelligence is special. Whether it's "better" than other animals...
Kinda depends on what you value, and we as humans obviously value the things our brain is specialized to do. Interesting point!

Anywho, there is no reason to make the attribute of "intelligence" something ethereal and special, that somehow defies evolution. That was what I was trying to explain to Gary, because he keeps saying evolution by natural selection doesn't apply, so him saying that he doesn't need it is not arguing against it.

Date: 2017/09/08 17:58:55, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 07 2017,22:51)
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 07 2017,14:53)
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 06 2017,21:02)
 
Quote
There is no point in mystifying intelligence, just because it's what makes us humans special, and it's such a complex thing.

But does it make us special? Without a common language, we can't really get a good measure of intelligence of dolphins, crows, or octopi, with which to compare theirs to ours.

Well, at least it's our particular kind of intelligence is special. Whether it's "better" than other animals...
Kinda depends on what you value, and we as humans obviously value the things our brain is specialized to do. Interesting point!

Anywho, there is no reason to make the attribute of "intelligence" something ethereal and special, that somehow defies evolution. That was what I was trying to explain to Gary, because he keeps saying evolution by natural selection doesn't apply, so him saying that he doesn't need it is not arguing against it.

Do you consider your level of self-esteem to be high, medium, or low?

Oh hi Gary, you seem to have conveniently missed the part of the conversation that was explicitly addressed at you...

Let me give you a small reminder: I explained to you how intelligence in animals is nothing special, compared to any other attribute, that is is linked to the way each brain is formed, which in turn is linked to genetics, just like any other trait. And I explained to you in very simply terms, that it is therefore subject to natural selection, which means you are arguing against natural selection, if you say you have an "alternative" theory that does not rely on it.

Do you understand that now?

If you are going to peddle intelligent design, don't pretend it's something it demonstrably isn't, just because you have disingenuinely decided to arbitrarily accept some scientific theories, without even understanding them.

Date: 2017/09/09 12:16:01, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote
and need to try getting some work done on the next generation computer model for explaining the basics of how intelligence works (at all levels of biology).


No, you don't need to do that. Literally no one asked you to do that, no one wants you to do that, and no one will ever think it has any sort of value. And you know that! Otherwise you would try to get it published in peer review. But we've been over this, and you know for a fact you would get rejected hard, if you attempted to submit it to a real peer-review-process. So you announced that you reject the notion of peer-review.

In essence, you know that you are doing this for no one else but yourself, like a hamster running in his little wheel. You know what you do demonstrably has no value, outside of whatever you -and only you- attach to it. So don't use "I have to get this done" as an excuse to avoid questions.

So, once again: Do you now understand/accept that intelligence (as a baseline) is a product of how the brain is formed, which in turn is a product of our genes, which in turn are subject to natural selection? Just answer the question, it's pretty straight forward. (if you answer "no", you might need to point out where you think there's a mistake in my explanation. If you answer "yes", you can accept the consequences of that and throw a good part of your pdf-"theory" out in the trash where is belongs.)

Date: 2017/09/09 18:11:48, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote
To reiterate: So what?


So, when, when talking about the origin of intelligence, that is completely incompatible with nonsense like
Quote
certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.


Because when talking about the feature "intelligence", it is best explained by natural selection, as I explained! And yet, your entire word salad seems to be built upon that idea.

Quote
Here is another link to where the action's most at for me:

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/profile/gary-s-gaulin


That is literally just an internet-forum with random people talking about a myriad of topics, none of which they seem to be speaking about in any professional capacity.

This is not research or science. There is no "action" happening there. How often do I have to repeat this? Science happens in peer-reviewed respectable journals, not blogs. If you actually thought you had something other than meaningless drivel, you would submit it. But we've been over this on reddit already. You understood you would immediately get rejected, and in turn, refused to accept the very process of peer review.

This is a delusion of yours Gary. No one is taking your nonsense "theory" seriously, no matter what site you post it on.
You posted it on those kurzweil forums as well, didn't you? Surely they took you seriously? Let's take a look at the responses you got, shall we?

Quote
You gotta be fucking kidding me. We all see through your bullshit, Gary. Get your creationist ass off this forum.


Quote
I find that there are at least a few unprovable assumptions which could greatly influence the interpretation of whatever data you have collected


Quote
Most of this is an a priori argument without any form of a priori evidence.


Quote
this paper has very little to offer in actual evidence other than suppositions and geussing whats possible without even gauging how probable because there is no path of contextual evidence to use.


Quote
Your paper is flawed in it's fundamental premise of non-randomness. I'd not spend any more time trying to 'prove' it, and go enjoy a nice round of golf or something.


Quote
Two words: Bull shit


Quote
there is no such thing as "molecular intelligence".


Quote
Infinit regression is only a problem if your trying to prove the existence of god. You said your not. I see you lied. I also see thar your planning to teach these ideas to children. So your going to pack your mind virus into an attractive package for the consumption of children.


This is really getting sad, Gary. Get help. So many different people have, independently from each other, told you that your "theory" is not science, and doesn't even make sense. So far, you have been unable to answer even the most basic questions about it.
And yet, you keep investing literally years of your life into what at this point reads like schizophrenic ramblings. No one will ever find any value in this, it's meaningless word salad.

Date: 2017/09/10 12:19:13, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (ChemiCat @ Sep. 10 2017,02:51)
Quote
The "publish or perish" mentality is rearing its ugly head again. Help figuring out how to explain this outside of the how-to environment that I thrive in is not allowed.

Those who do not do everything on their own then crawl on their knees to a publisher will have their work trashed, until they do. Then after that there is one more paper in one of thousands of journals few people actually keep up with, especially in the how-to community. After factoring in how much is kept a trade secret or for some other reason was never published it's actually a bad way to try keeping up all happening in science.

I'm very against this form of academic snobbery, I'm now helping to make gone. Get real please.


And we are back into Gaulinese. The words are English but in this order are otherwise meaningless.

Here are a few "how to" questions for you Gaulin;

1) How to determine "molecular intelligence?
2) How to determine "Cellular intelligence"?
3) How to determine if single cell clusters are "intelligent"?

Feel free to ignore answering these questions because you can't even attempt them with your "theory".

If your "theory" cannot provide evidence for any of these it is bullshit. (yes, I know it is bullshit).

And "real" has been added to the Gaulinese dictionary as another word Gaulin doesn't understand.

What is he even trying to say here? I read this 3 times, and I genuinely can't find a logical connection. I get his motivation behind the post: He wants to continue playing scientist, so he needs an excuse for the fact that he never has been published and never will be published, by somehow railing against peer review.

But what he's actually saying literally doesn't seem to even have a connection to that, or anything else for that matter. Seriously, can someone help me understand this incoherent assortment of words?

Quote
The "publish or perish" mentality is rearing its ugly head again.

My best guess here is that Gary does not know what the phrase is meant to convey, because it doesn't apply to him at all, seeing how he is not in academia, has never published anything, and is doing his wordsalad out of his own volition from his basement.

Quote
Help figuring out how to explain this outside of the how-to environment that I thrive in is not allowed.

WHAT? Explain what? All he has mentioned before was the "publish-or-perish-mentality". Why would that need explaining? And why would it not be allowed to help figuring out how it explain it? Who doesn't allow it?  And what the hell is the "how-to-environment"?

Also, I'm pretty sure it's another delusion that Gary "strives" in it. So far, at any point that Gary has posted his nonsense-"theory" on any platform, it was resoundingly rejected. I posted quotes from the kurzweil-forums to his "theory" in my last post. I was there when he presented it to reddit (the same, rejected as unscientific and stupid), and you guys know how well it worked out out here. So I have yet to see any  community that doesn't immediately see through this pile of not even pseudoscience. (The only ones who are kinda open to it are other cdesign proponentsists)
So, please Gary, show us where we can find the responses of this "how-to-environment" to your "theory"! I wanna see you thrive.

Quote
Those who do not do everything on their own then crawl on their knees to a publisher will have their work trashed, until they do.

What the hell is he trying to communicate here? That you have to do everything on your own to get through peer-review? There are lots of team, co-authors and so on, cooperation is a huge part of academia. So he can't really mean that. But then again, I have no idea what he could mean.

Quote
Then after that there is one more paper in one of thousands of journals few people actually keep up with, especially in the how-to community.

Hey! Apart from the weird grammar and the mention of this unexplained "how-to-community", this sentence is pretty straighforward. It's still wrong, stupid, and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding about how science works, but hey, at least I understood what he
Quote
wanted
to say.

Quote
After factoring in how much is kept a trade secret or for some other reason was never published it's actually a bad way to try keeping up all happening in science.

Oh, okay, we're back to sentences that don't even relate to anything. I guess he is railing against peer-review again? Does he now think he has a better alternative? Is it "posting" blogs at random people on the internet? We'll never know.

Anyone up to helping me interpret this weird gibberish?

Date: 2017/09/12 17:53:36, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote
Dozens of "The Man" scientists and science educators (sometimes with students) from academia have been very thankful for the scientific resources I later provide. I'm not expected to have to write the science papers. That's the job of "The Man" from academia who devoted their live's to writing them and just needs something original to help build their academic careers with. They prefer I leave all of that up to them, and I gladly do. There is thus no fighting at all there either.


I just have to remark that this is the most delusional, self-aggrandizing thing I have ever seen. I'm not sure if this is a 'sour grapes'-kind of situation, or if Gary actually manages to believe this, but either way, it's disturbing.

Gary, you are not having some sort of symbiosis with science, where you come up with great ideas and leave the paperwork to those grunts from science.
Absolutely everyone with any sort of scientific literacy has told you countless times, that you don't even understand the basics of what science even is. They keep telling you that your "theory" is not even in the same ballpark as science.

And let's be honest, what you are saying now is blatantly contradicting your earlier actions to attempt publishing. I can show you the reddit thread where we all explained very patiently to you why would never get your crap published. To which you responded by rejecting the peer-review-system, if it was gonna reject you. So you can see how your words seem very...disingenuous.

Lastly, I would like to point out how patronizing and insulting a sentence like

Quote
That's the job of "The Man" from academia who devoted their live's to writing them and just needs something original to help build their academic careers with.


is towards scientists.

Your delusions need to stop Gary. Go get help. This forum alone has now 600 pages of people telling you that you have not even the beginning of scientific work and are literally wasting decades of your life playing make-believe like a toddler who found a labcoat.

Date: 2017/09/12 19:19:13, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 12 2017,19:10)
scholar.google.com/scholar?q=gaulin+dinosaur+track+site&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22

We've been over this! You let actual scientists on your property, because it happened to contain dinosaur tracks. That's nice! Good for you! But that does not mean you are in any way involved in this.

You are not part of science just because your backyard happened to contain something of value to science.
That's like a sick person saying: "Yeah, they discovered this virus in me, so you could say i'm kind of a doctor. Could save some lives. I'm a big deal in the medical community."

Date: 2017/09/22 17:33:51, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 18 2017,15:24)
2) According to what definition of intelligence?

Quote
According to the definition that works for making best guess predictions like this:


This is not an answer to his question! When someone asks you what definition you are using, you can't just point to a guess and say "Whatever definition makes this random guess work. You tell me!".

I can't believe I even have to point this out. But as if that wasn't bad enough, the link with the random guess you threw in doesn't even have anything to do with this particular problem! It's you giving a completely nonsensical answer to the question how machines could understand human emotions without understanding language. (And promptly getting ignored, because of how nonsensical your answer is.)

And then you finish this whole intellectual fart with this:

Quote
using their Darwinian approved alternative "definition of intelligence" or whatever:


This one quote alone demonstrates so clearly that you have no concept of anything we are talking about here. It's like someone saying "...using euclidean approved alternative "definition of planets" or whatever."

It's not just that it's gibberish, it shows the speaker has missed fundamental knowledge of the subject in general, and the question in particular. We've been over this! I explained to you what the connection between intelligence, natural selection and the brain is! How are you still getting something THIS wrong?

Date: 2017/09/22 20:19:13, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 30 2016,07:18)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 30 2016,06:54)
How would that change my (based upon how intelligence works) operational definition for "intelligence"?
   
Quote
Behavior from a system or a device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements that are required for this ability, which are: (1) A body to control, either real or virtual, with motor muscle(s) including molecular actuators, motor proteins, speakers (linear actuator), write to a screen (arm actuation), motorized wheels (rotary actuator). It is possible for biological intelligence to lose control of body muscles needed for movement yet still be aware of what is happening around itself but this is a condition that makes it impossible to survive on its own and will normally soon perish. (2) Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. (3) Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail to meet immediate needs or goal. (4) Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response is designed into the motor system by the reversing of motor direction causing it to “tumble” towards a new heading.

That's not an operational definition, because it doesn't tell me how to measure the parameters.

It's not a valid theoretical definition either, because:

1) Requiring "a body to control" specifically excludes activities that are widely considered to epitomize intelligence (without redefining intelligence in any useful way), such as planning your future, evaluating your life, mentally composing a melody, etc., etc., etc.  
2) You are nonsensically special-pleading with respect to virtual bodies,  molecular actuators, speakers, writing to a screen, etc.
3) You haven't ground-truthed anything regarding any part of your #2.
4) Your 1 through 4 include Neato vacuum cleaners and autofocus cameras as being intelligent.
5) "Guessing" can be random and is not necessarily indicative of intelligence in action: assessing results and modifying subsequent behavior can be intelligent, but some cases may instead be handled thoughtlessly by biochemical reactions (e.g., tumbled seeds "figuring out" which way to grow; bacteria tumbling randomly and then biochemical reactions assess results and promote additional biochemical reactions).   Learning from experience gained from random guesses is more obviously indicative of intelligence, but you don't say that.

Those are just some of the highlights of your problems, not an exhaustive list.

We have explained countless times to you why that is a bunch of useless woo-woo. Here, I'll just quote the last time someone laid it out for you. You never got around to addressing these points, so maybe you want to take this opportunity to fix that oversight?

Otherwise don't bother copy-pasting your gibberish over and over.

Date: 2017/09/23 20:23:03, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote
Speaking of due credit to David Heiserman:


We weren't. We were "speaking of" how your definition of intelligence isn't really a definition, and is outright nonsensical at many points. Before that, you literally pointed at a random guess and said "my definition of intelligence is whatever definition makes this guess work."

So, we are still at the point where you failed to define even the most rudimentary of concepts for your "theory". If you actively go out of your way to ignore everything we just said, you must know that you don't have an answer right?

It always confounds me, how you anti-science-advocates can apparently keep believing your nonsense, despite having to take conscious action to obfuscate, distract, weasel out of questions, and lie in order to maintain it.
Hell, ChemiCat even called it, that you would completely ignore what we wrote. And, literally the next thing you do....is ignore what we wrote. Do you have any self-awareness?

Date: 2017/09/24 10:04:16, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 23 2017,22:09)
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 23 2017,20:23)
We were "speaking of" how your definition of intelligence isn't really a definition, and is outright nonsensical at many points.

Then all I can say is get used to it. Here's your Compressorhead Blitzkrieg Bop:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqE9zIp0Muk

....Did Gaulin just tell us to get used to the fact that he is making no sense, and that he is gonna ignore us when we point that out?

That is honestly the most self-aware thing he has ever said! And it's hilarious! He even ended it with the obligatory pointless music video.

Date: 2017/09/25 19:55:11, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 25 2017,19:04)
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 25 2017,14:19)
       
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 24 2017,21:09)
Well, one should be quite careful about using "gamma" processes, considering what those did to Dr. Banner and B. Grim.

Again, it would be nice to have a "like" button.


See "Classes Of Robotic Self-Learning" that's right above David's picture. I checked the Source, and surprise!

cyberneticzoo.com/cyberneticanimals/1979-rodney-self-programming-robot-david-l-heiserman-american/

It's word for word from his book. My wife helped proofread it over and over again to make sure it's all there.  

Another way to explain it is: Gamma adds a subroutine to alter the properties of the RAM in a way that if what happened is similar to something else that did not yet happen then the same information is stored at more than one memory location. It's an interesting way to add some of the benefits of having a frontal cortex, but the model I'm working on needs to add that (and more) by using a brainwave powered spatial reasoning network and such.

Having a "Gamma" subroutine altering the contents of memory for systems that must have no changes made at all would just cause conflicts that crash the system.

The joke ===============>
.
.
.
Gary's head -> (o_O)




Apart from that, that's equal parts wordsalad, unsupported assertions, failure to grasp how science works and what people criticized in the first place.

Date: 2017/09/30 16:44:13, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 30 2017,15:44)
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 30 2017,12:45)
Every now and again Gary bitches about science being a closed shop restricted to credentialed academics.  We correct this, and point out that plenty of amateurs manage to make valuable contributions to science.  

Then "citizens science" is now ahead of "non-citizen science" in explaining the most important fundamental basics of how our brains work. But in this case I do not foresee a thank you, just more slaps in the face for having done so.

Oh wow, an amateur without scientific training is "ahead of [professional scientists] in explaining the most fundamental basics of how our brains work?" This is amazing, especially considering how well we already understand those basics! By all means, please show me the paper where that amateurs findings are published? Which peer-reviewed journal published them, I could look it up for myself!


....Wait.... You aren't talking about yourself now, Gary, are you? No, of course not, we all know you have never had your gibberish "theory" published, and even outright reject the scientific method - And N.Wells JUST finished explaining to you that even amateurs go through just that whenever they do make actual contributions to science. He also pointed out that those people do actual science, whereas everyone who has ever looked at your woo-woo has told you that it's pseudoscience at best. In fact, that is the very reason why you rejected the scientific method in the first place, because you understood that it could never ever pass peer review.

So, yeah, obviously you couldn't be talking about yourself, sorry for the derailed train of thought. Well then, please show us the paper of this amateur you were talking about.

Date: 2017/10/01 19:09:30, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 01 2017,15:15)
John, it looks like you will soon see why I keep ending up back at Wesley's forum from hell. In this one almost everything becomes a major source of debate, especially the fact that cognitive MI algorithms do not work by environmental "natural selection" acting upon genetic "mutation" therefore what its "theory" and models derived from it explain is "not an undirected process such as natural selection."

I do not want to have to point out that the not condition in the premise for the theory this forum exists to destroy is that way satisfied. But for the sake of science and science education someone has to do it. So here I am, again..

Can we please get a gibberish-translator for this?
Even for Gary, this is off the rails, there is not even a semblance of connection to anything.

Gary made responded to a comment that tore away his victim role, as an oppressed amateur of science, which in turn got absolutely dismantled by everyone. (Not surprising, since he demonstrably missed the entire point about the reason WHY his ant-science is universally rejected. But that's just par of the course for him.)

But then....came this, and I genuinely can't find any logical connection to anything that was said before. Just look at this sentence:

Quote
I do not want to have to point out that the not condition in the premise for the theory this forum exists to destroy is that way satisfied.


I read it several times, and it's not that I think it's wrong, or the content is nonsensical, I have no idea what he wants to say, it's like a program that randomly strings words together.

Oh well, at least he admitted yet another defeat via music-video, so that's nice. But still, I would love a translation of the rest.

Date: 2017/10/01 19:23:58, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Update:

After reading it about ten more times, I think I figured out what this  horrible perversion of an english sentence was supposed to say.

He means that his rejection of natural selection is justified, because code is not natural selection. Therefore in his mind, if he can show to do something with code, he has shown that it doesn't need natural selection, which -in his feverish psyche- means it's shown to be "best explained by an intelligent designer".

It's still among the stupidest things he has ever said, but at least now I understood the actual stupid thing he wanted to convey.

Date: 2017/10/03 14:10:01, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 03 2017,09:15)
Quote
And please stop moving the goalposts by adding things into the premise of the theory that are not in there like "intelligent designer" instead of "intelligent cause".


So "intelligent cause" doesn't have an "Intelligent designer" (peace be unto him)? So is it designed by committee, which would explain a lot, or is there no "cause" inside the material universe? Is this "cause" transcendent or non-existent?

Perhaps you can force your Methodist god in there as the cause but then you would have to provide testable evidence. Oh! that's right, you don't provide said evidence. The second rule of Gaulin thread.

And in addition to that, the very sentence started with "the theory of intelligent Design"....

But yeah, the muddled differences aside, Gaulin completely missed my actual criticism. Because what I said is valid no matter if you use the word "designer" or "cause", it literally makes no difference for the point I was making. But I think he remembers someone saying "moving the goalposts", and without really understanding what it was, thought he could just throw this in to shut down an argument he can't refute.

As a reminder to Gary: What I pointed out was that your "logic" on how you claimed to get rid of natural selection and replace it with an intelligence was very very faulty. (Note how it makes no difference if this is an intelligent cause or designer, even if you should ever bother make a proper distinction.)

Date: 2017/10/04 09:54:20, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 03 2017,17:48)
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Oct. 03 2017,14:10)
So "intelligent cause" doesn't have an "Intelligent designer" (peace be unto him)? So is it designed by committee, which would explain a lot, or is there no "cause" inside the material universe? Is this "cause" transcendent or non-existent?
.....

And in addition to that, the very sentence started with "the theory of intelligent Design"....

Well then here's a scientific theory for explaining the primordial deity of the Earth, Goddess Gaia:

www.gaiatheory.org/overview/

This post is either irrelevant, nonsensical, or flat out wrong. In order for me to pick which one it is, I need you to answer this question:

What exactly is the difference between an intelligent cause, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things"; and an intelligent designer, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things".

I really can't see any possible answer you could give that would make your last comment a sensible response, but based on your answer, I can at least accurately say if you were being stupid, irrelevant or purposefully deceiving. :)

Date: 2017/10/04 14:59:58, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Yesyes, bunch of aggrandizing and gibberish, got it, now please answer this question:

What exactly is the difference between an intelligent cause, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things"; and an intelligent designer, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things".

You yourself were very clear that there is a distinction, even when the distinction didn't actually matter in the least.
And you yourself state that there is some (undefined) intelligent cause responsible for "certain features of the universe and of living things".

So by your very own words, you made it clear that this is relevant.
So answer the question already, for once in your life. (Or just admit utter defeat, like you always do.)

Date: 2017/10/04 16:09:14, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Gary, this is not going to go away just by you plugging your ears and going "lalalala-Ican'thearyou!"

I know you anti-science-advocates like to avoid questions, but I'm not gonna just let you.

Answer the question, or I everyone will take it as the ultimate concession that you don't have an answer, and there isn't even a difference:

What exactly is the difference between an intelligent cause, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things";  and an intelligent designer, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things".

Date: 2017/10/04 16:47:03, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Well, you heard it: Gary admits that he can't answer what the difference between an intelligent cause and and intelligent designer is.

(Not that it would make much difference, Gary has never provided evidence for either. But it is still fun seeing him panic at the question and desperately flailing to change the topic and distract. Thanks Gary, you made my night ;))

Date: 2017/10/04 17:27:13, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 04 2017,16:58)
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Oct. 04 2017,16:47)
Well, you heard it: Gary admits that he can't answer what the difference between an intelligent cause and and intelligent designer is.

Intelligent Designer related questions such as those are best answered at this forum:
www.reddit.com/r/askashittyphilosopher/

You are the one protesting that there is a difference between the two, and you are the making the claim that an intelligent cause is the best explanation for some unspecified features of the universe and living things.

So you should be the one to be able to answer what the difference is. Not being able to do so is a direct admission that you are just spouting woo-woo.

But you can't, you have made that abundantly clear now by refusing to answer for the 5th time. But I'm nice, and give you a yet another chance. Answer this simple question:

What exactly is the difference between an intelligent cause, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things";  and an intelligent designer, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things"

The first thing is something you are claiming exists, the second thing is something you apparently understand is nonsense.

Explain what exactly the difference is, or you are admitting to everyone here that you can't answer such an essential and fundamental question.

Date: 2017/10/05 08:24:32, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 04 2017,21:31)
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Oct. 04 2017,17:27)
What exactly is the difference between an intelligent cause, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things";  and an intelligent designer, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things"

For us to make sense of the purpose of your question you will first need to explain why you believe that this statement from the premise:
   
Quote
certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause

is exactly equal to this statement that you fabricated by switching words around:
   
Quote
intelligent cause, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things"

Yeah, you are not weaseling out of this this easily. I will gladly show you how to answer a question, which is surprisingly easy, if you actually know what you are talking about...(Hence why you spent your last 6 posts avoiding to give an answer)

I'll go through my sentence, and reference exactly where I got what I wrote from your dribble.

Quote
an intelligent cause, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things"


Directly taken from you.

Quote
an intelligent cause, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things"


You contrast your "intelligent cause" with an "undirected process such as natural selection". This implies that the intelligent cause is directed towards the goal of achieving those undefined feature, as opposed to an undirected process, such as natural selection. You never bothered to define HOW the intelligent cause is doing that, so I left it at "directing efforts towards", which is vague enough to encompass whatever you would like to fill in there. The "purposeful" is by definition necessarily correct. You can't have a directed process by an intelligence that is NOT on purpose, if it was just an accidental effect it would not be directed.

Quote
an intelligent cause, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things"


Again, directly taken from your gibberish, to describe what it is the intelligence is causing.



As for the other part, with the "designer":
THIS is what you are supposed to differentiate from your intelligent cause! That is the question! This has literally no connection to moving the goalposts! It's like you use words you hear randomly, to try and sound smarter!

Well then, now that we got that out of the way, I repeat the question for the fifth time:

What exactly is the difference between an intelligent cause, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things"; and an intelligent designer, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things". Where do intelligent cause and intelligent designer differ?

Date: 2017/10/07 10:45:39, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Did we finally get Gary to admit defeat and shut up about his pseudo-science woo-woo? Was that really all it took? Not letting him weasel out of a basic question he can't answer?

Date: 2017/10/08 18:18:25, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 07 2017,17:41)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 07 2017,11:22)
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Oct. 07 2017,09:45)
Did we finally get Gary to admit defeat and shut up about his pseudo-science woo-woo? Was that really all it took? Not letting him weasel out of a basic question he can't answer?

Don't worry; it won't last.

It never has before.  He's probably off ignoring criticism on some other site.

I don't know. We managed to get Gary away from reddit, when he began spreading his anti-scientific rubbish there. And it was exactly the same thing that caused him to absolutely panic and crawl back under his rock: Pressing easy to understand, fundamental questions, which he can't answer. (As long as they are basic enough that even Gary understands, that being unable to answer them destroys his delusional "theory".)

Date: 2017/10/11 11:03:56, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 11 2017,01:07)
Study Material:

My Experience With Spiritual Psychosis
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFq3TGa2Q9c

Is Perception a ‘Controlled Hallucination’?
www.bigquestionsonline.com/2017/09/06/perception-controlled-hallucination/

Holy crap, Gary, are you finally realizing that you need mental help? I'm no professional, so I won't say that you what you have is a "spiritual psychosis", you should seek a psychiatrist's opinion and go from there. (Though I must say it fits some of your symptoms, but not all, so don't jump to conclusions on your own.)

I have ripped on you for your anti-science stance in the past, but now I can say that I fully support you and genuinely wish you can get the help you need. Remember, there is truly no shame in it, it's not any more your fault than getting the flu.

I'm gonna put asking you to answer my question on hold, since this might become a moot point, if you do get better.

Date: 2017/10/12 17:51:16, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 11 2017,17:35)
Wesley is in the ID (fake) news!

evolutionnews.org/2017/10/how-notable-do-you-really-have-to-be-to-merit-a-wikipedia-entry/
     
Quote
I experimented by searching for names of random ID critics. Some you’d expect to be featured – Jerry Coyne or Kenneth Miller, for instance. Fine. But a team of bloggers for the now moribund site Panda’s Thumb? Yes, they are there including such luminaries as Wesley R. Elsberry. Read his entry and tell me, honestly, if you think he’s more “notable” than Günter Bechly? It indicates that Elsberry is a marine biologist, but his LinkedIn biography seems to have been updated more recently. It gives him as being currently employed as a programmer for a company offering “property management software solutions.” I suppose that’s notable if you’re a property manager.


And in case anyone was wondering where my latest tangent came from I owe it all to Denyse O'Leary, who had a crazy sounding yet fantastic idea:

uncommondescent.com/religion/silicon-valley-religion-the-final-end-of-science-is-the-revelation-of-the-absurd/      
Quote
Naturalists will believe in anything except reason, free will, or reality. One thing naturalist cults can probably count on is lots of free publicity from former mainstream media. The story practically writes itself, right?: Nerd programs computer to pray… is just the beginning.


The "Eureka!" moment was such an eye-opener that I had to seek professional help. Here is what neuroscientists had to say about it:

www.reddit.com/r/neuro/comments/75m0yi/is_perception_a_controlled_hallucination/

All we are now learning about how we work is more than meeting my expectations for unfathomable changes to human civilization being caused by what is best explained by a technological singularity.

No, Gary, no.

You were so close....go back. Seek help. I am not kidding, everything about your behavior is throwing red flags that you have mental issues.

You are obsessive (5 years in this forum alone, among many others, despite absolutely everyone unanimously telling you that you are completely wrong), you have disorganized speech (e.g., frequent derailment or incoherence), you have trouble relating to what people are actually feeling and expressing (at one point you paraded around an email that essentially told you you were asking the wrong questions, because you thought the guy you had bothered praised you), you are constantly self-aggrandizing, while at the same time portraying yourself as the victim for failing.
You have trouble understanding simple chains of logic.

I'm no professional, but all these things are textbook red flags. And I'm not the only one who noticed that, people have independently from each other suggested that you had mental problems. Go get help!


Buuuuut: If you delusions won't allow you to recognize any of that, then you might as well go back and answer my question! You know, the one about intelligent cause and intelligent creator....

Date: 2017/10/15 19:15:49, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote
Last Thursday my wife Laurie had to be scheduled for emergency surgery on Friday for her heart condition. She now has a pacemaker.


I wish your wife good health and wellbeing.

Quote
The surgery ended up being scheduled for the same day students from Holyoke Community College were here to study the tracksite.


Not sure why you felt the need to include this. I genuinely hope you didn't just try to use your wife's surgery as a segway into trying to appear scientifically relevant, just because something of actual value happens to be on a piece of land that you happen to own. It has nothing to do with you.

Quote
I now feel like if the retaliation from countries that increasingly want to nuke us into oblivion don't destroy us then the Trump administration will force the public schools and other national resources to use religion to destroy us from within. It seems like the only thing for certain is that my wife and I will soon get to die broke, so that those with delusions of grandeur can freely spread deadly ignorance and their holy greed. Forums like this one only makes our problems worse.


Do you really not see any hypocrisy in this? Are you seriously that self-unaware?
"delusions of grandeur", "spread[ing] deadly ignorance", "use religion to destroy [schools]"?
Does this really not remind you of anyone?

As others have pointed out, now would be the perfect time to face facts and abandon your religious woo-woo, to take care of your family. You spent (and spend) so much time on this, if you put that into something productive, your life could be looking so much better!

Date: 2017/10/26 19:24:45, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 23 2017,03:21)
Quote
What a delusional response from Gary. That didn't answer any of the outstanding questions.


Wesley, the first five rules of the Gaulin thread are that Gaulin doesn't answer questions.

Sorry, that should read "the only rules...

At least whilst he is mucking about with his Pacman look-alike he is not harming anyone other than his family.

Yes, but that is bad enough. His delusions may be messing up the lives of his family, and they are definitely messing up his own.

But I get what you mean, I have literally not seen a single person be convinced by his insane ramblings, not even the dumbest creationist. So that limits his negative impact on science by quite a bit.

Date: 2017/10/27 13:22:59, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote
I'm expected to forever answer to semantic issues


No, you are expected to give basic answers and definitions about your brainfart of an idea. Which you refuse to do to such a ludicrous degree, that it's pretty obvious that at least some part of you KNOWS you don't have anything substantial.

If I had more time, I could make a very very long list of basic questions you have refused to answer. The most recent being asked to define what the difference between an "intelligent cause of something" and an "intelligent designer of something" is. This is not semantics, this is giving basic definitions, since you yourself insist that there is a difference, and that this difference is important for your theory of gibberish.

Quote
My job is to develop a MODEL


No, that is not your job, under any definition. No one wants you to do this, no one thinks this is what you are doing, and no one takes you playing scientist like a toddler seriously.
Show me one single person who is convinced that your "theory" is correct. Just one! Even Richard Kent has a following of a few hundred creationists, and he's someone who actually suggested that dragon-myths go back to dinosaurs' nostrils catching on fire because they had to breath too fast in the oxygen-desaturated atmosphere after the flood! Let that sink in, these are people dumb enough to believe just about anything, and yet you have not found a single one who buys your bullshit.

Quote
At this stage I very much have the right to expect something better from critics


At what stage? It is still the same tired old nonsense. You have not been able to address any of the problems, you have not been able to answer any of the fundamental questions, and you have not even demonstrated that you understand what science is.

Quote
very busy making excuses for not having anything at all.

Having what? Are you suggesting that only people who write a gibberish blog for 40 pages are in a position to point out the fatal flaws in your nonsense?

Date: 2017/10/28 08:53:06, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 27 2017,23:32)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 27 2017,16:15)
Quote
OK, list the "predictions" your so-called "model" predicts, I bet you can't.


Legitimate predictions, logically entailed by the model, of course, not your usual "hypofeces".

Yeah, but that would require having a model that has some relevance to the claims.

Or having a model at all, not just a bunch of unhinged ravings.

Date: 2017/10/31 09:58:17, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote
I'm none the less successfully modeling the behavior of populations of neurons, while my critics just throw defamatory insults.



No and no. No, this is not what you are doing, stop playing make-believe in your delusional fantasyworld, and no, that is not what your "critics" are doing. Your "critics" are asking you incredibly basic questions and pointing out unbelievably easy-to-spot fatal flaws in your gibberish. You can't answer or address them.

Date: 2017/11/03 21:05:39, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 03 2017,09:49)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Nov. 02 2017,11:59)
Quote
My work has likewise been towards modeling "small groups of crude virtual neurons". I focused on the motor navigation side of the system while Geoff Hinton was focusing on the sensory input side.


And what reaction has Professor Hinton given to your "model"? Has he praised it as a major breakthrough in cognitive science and robotics?

What! You haven't sent it to him? I wonder why not.

Several times in the past Gary has told of emailing someone far above himself in the cognition spectrum and having either received no response or a polite "That's nice" he reported back here that his theory was doing fine and that the person he emailed "had no problem with it."

Back when Gary still ventured into Reddit, he pranced around with an email-reply he had received from some actual scientist. The thing was: That person was pretty directly telling him that he wasn't even asking the right question. He was just doing so in a polite way, and that's all it took for Gary to proclaim this as recognition and -no joke- peer review.
It was actually quite sad to watch when people called him out on it and laughed at him.
(Went straight back to being fun again though, when he started bragging here how well he was doing on Reddit.)

Date: 2017/11/06 18:26:38, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote
Otherwise there is no testable mechanism to explain the so named "intelligent cause" of living things.


What did you say was the exact difference between an "intelligent cause of living things", and an "intelligent designer of living things"?

Because if you can't give one, your intelligent design "theory" isn't just intelligent design in name only.
Which is not be surprising, given that by your own admission, the entire premise of your junk-theory is literally based on the Discovery Institute - An organization famous for trying to get intelligent-design creationism taught in American schools.

Quote
My signature line still gives me the creeps too, but at least we are now on the same page in regards to what it says exactly.


....What are you on about? Your signature line (which is straight up copy-pasted from your "theory") gives you the creeps? So you know that it is horrendously wrong? Meaning you know that the entire foundation of your "theory" is wrong? Then why not just give this whole cringeworthy crusade for pseudoscience up and go home?

I'm assuming you must mean something else, because you have never shown that level of self reflection before, but whatever you do mean is as usual completely incomprehensible and incoherent, so your guess is as good as mine.

Date: 2017/11/07 19:25:09, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote
Other than the premise stating "intelligent cause" not "intelligent designer" there is no difference, same process/entity.


Yes, we know. It's intelligent design, by any definition.

The statement I quoted at the beginning of this post clearly states that there is no difference between an intelligent designer and an intelligent cause, they are the "same process/entity", according to you.

Now, why did you try for so long to weasel out of answering this question, which we all knew the answer to anyway?

Because here we get a perfect example of why you keep shooting yourself in the foot.
You have a "theory" of gibberish that you can not only not express coherently, no, you haven't even finished making it up all the way. There literally doesn't exist a coherent idea of this, not even in your own brain. All you have is a spiritually inspired vague idea that you want to be true, and a bunch of woowoo to defend it. But since you don't even have a clear idea of what exactly you are trying to defend, you keep making the woowoo up as you go along. Whatever seems plausible to you at any given point is what your gibberish means.

Of course, this inevitably leads to you contradicting yourself at every corner, because there is no consistency in made up stuff you haven't even clearly defined for yourself.

Let's look at some quotes of people contradicting you, shall we?

Quote
stop moving the goalposts by adding things into the premise of the theory that are not in there like "intelligent designer" instead of "intelligent cause".


Oh, whoops, that is awkward, if the two are the same entity, how is it moving the goalposts to use the other term? Whoever wrote that quote must strongly disagree with you!

And here's another guy who seems to disagree completely with you:

Quote
Intelligent Designer related questions such as those are best answered at this forum:
www.reddit.com/r/askashittyphilosopher/


He even implies that any mentions of an intelligent designer are a sign of shitty philosophy!

Quote
Never judge a book by its cover. Likewise: Never judge a theory by its title.


Ha, and whoever wrote this clearly doesn't know that "there is no difference [between intelligent designer or intelligent cause], same process/entity."

So, who were all those guys who contradicted you? Why, it was all you, Gary! In fact, you were the only one who contradicted yourself on this matter, the rest of was saying that this was clearly intelligent design from the start. But good to know that we are on the same page on that one, at least until you flip-flop next time, and decide your "theory" shouldn't be about an intelligent designer after all, then the two will suddenly be completely different things again.

Date: 2017/11/11 15:10:11, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2017,20:28)
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Nov. 07 2017,19:25)
Let's look at some quotes of people contradicting you, shall we?

   
Quote
stop moving the goalposts by adding things into the premise of the theory that are not in there like "intelligent designer" instead of "intelligent cause".


Oh, whoops, that is awkward, if the two are the same entity, how is it moving the goalposts to use the other term? Whoever wrote that quote must strongly disagree with you!

And here's another guy who seems to disagree completely with you:

   
Quote
Intelligent Designer related questions such as those are best answered at this forum:
www.reddit.com/r/askashittyphilosopher/


He even implies that any mentions of an intelligent designer are a sign of shitty philosophy!

What you are doing is the same as demanding Wesley to explain the origin of a godlike entity the premise of Charles Darwin's theory (according to you) named the "Natural Selector".

You can expect a similar kind of response from me. Use proper phrases, or you do not deserve to be taken seriously. It's otherwise a question that only a place like the ask a shitty philosopher forum would (for entertainment value) want to try answering.

And once again, you don't even pretend to address anything I have said, but rather repeat the initial nonsense I just refuted.

Okay, I'm gonna be extra slow this time.

You claim your "theory" shows that "certain features of living beings are best explained by an intelligent cause".
(All throughout this gibberish)

You also claim that other than the fact that you happened to use the word "cause", there is no difference between "intelligent cause" and "intelligent designer", they are the same entity.
(Here's the post)

You also admit that the very premise of your "theory" is copied word for word from the Discovery Institute's definition of Intelligent Design.
(Discovery Institute)

What you have is by any definition intelligent design, and your "intelligent cause" is -even by your own admission- the same thing as an intelligent designer.

This is why it's painfully obvious that you make this shit up as you go along, when you sporadically protest that someone used the term "intelligent designer", instead of "intelligent cause".....only to then admit that the words are synonymous, and already having admitted that your very definition of your theory is the exact same definition that the discovery institute uses - without any attempt to pretend that "cause" refers to anything but a designer.

Do you understand that now? Do you understand, that you are contradicting yourself, when you say that anything involving "intelligent designer" is shitty philosophy, after you admit that "intelligent cause" IS "intelligent designer"?
And do you understand that crying "moving the goalposts" is completely misused, when someone uses the term "intelligent designer"? (Can't stress this enough, you yourself admitted that they are "the same entity")

I know I repeated myself a lot in this, but as the last exchange showed, you have really big trouble grasping simple concepts.

Date: 2017/12/23 20:26:40, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
I think it's nice he's finally showing an interest in science. It's never too late, maybe he will learn something from those plastic toys!

Date: 2018/02/13 18:38:55, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote
From what I now know the future of "intelligent cause" related theory remains dependant upon the (still alive and doing well) RNA World, going on inside cells. Larry apparently still maintains his opinion that it should be considered "junk" but we're only two months into 2018 and there are already over 1000 new papers regarding lncRNA function:


Okay, so Gary heard the term "RNA World", and decided to mix it into his word salad without understanding it.
RNA World decribes the (hypothetical) conditions on earth that were a precursor to the first DNA molecules. The term has nothing to do with what's going on in Cells right now. It has also nothing to do with the link you are apparantly referring to....

But that is rather irrelevant, because your "intelligent cause theory" - just like any intelligent design hypothesis - remains dependant on you being able to show any connection to observable reality and to being able to show scientific methodology. Neither of which you or any creationist has ever done. So don't worry, RNA World (whatever you may think that is) is the least of your concerns.

Date: 2018/02/14 11:33:07, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 14 2018,06:52)
At Sandwalk I had to reply back to someone who did not seem to know why I was curious about brain development and reproduction related RNA, and developments in neuroscience regarding possible memory function for what can also be called "splice variants". Now I most likely have only one more comment left, after that Larry's kicking me out:

sandwalk.blogspot.com/2018/02/are-splice-variants-functional-or-noise.html?showComment=1518533832272#c3212428335794271141

Why would you announce this here? This is not a good thing for you, this actively makes you look bad! You are basically loudly proclaiming:

"Look, another scientist told me that I am just talking gibberish and don't understand science! I think I should share this with the forum that has told me countless times that I am just talking gibberish and don't understand science!"


Do you seriously not get how conversation works? Or did you understand all of that and decided to do it anyway?

And only 3 posts after I told you that you were completely misusing terminology, which you have obviously just heard somewhere and didn't comprehend. Did you post that just to prove me right? Was that your way of giving me a gift?

Date: 2018/02/15 18:53:48, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote
My example helped show who the leaders in science discovery now are. Larry and others are now retired. It's not surprising to find the younger generations carrying on the tradition of searching for what past leaders might have missed.


This might be the most delusional self-aggrandizing I have ever heard.

And no, it does not "show who the leaders in science discovery now are".
The mental gymnastics to arrive at such a conclusion are breathtaking!

How do you get from
"scientist tells internet-troll that his ideas are stupid"

to

"proof that internet troll is now leading authority in science discovery" ???

Did you seriously just start out with the assumption that your nonsense is correct > therefore if someone calls it stupid, they are obviously wrong > therefore such a person would not be a good scientist > therefore you are a better scientist (> therefore your nonsense is correct)?

Is this the "logic" behind this? Because of the life of me, I can't see anything else how your mind could somehow turn someone calling you a dumbass into vindication of your dumbass ideas?



(As a side note: "The younger generation"? For some reason, I thought you were like 60, which would put you in the same generation as laurence moran... This has absolutely nothing to do with anything, your argument is stupid even if you are 20. Just curious.)

Date: 2018/03/13 20:20:19, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Wait, am I going crazy? Were some of the most recent posts deleted?

I distinctly remember there being a comment from one of you guys about this bit of gaulinese-gibberish:

Quote
I'm not bothered by rope connected treehuggers getting in touch with their inner cells by networking out as neural networks and such by following the most basic communication rules they live by, learn their language.


(Also, we are just gonna ignore his delusions that he's a scientist, because he once shook hands with an actual scientist, right? I don't know why, but I find his way of talking about them as if they were collagues and equals highly disrespectful.)

Date: 2018/03/25 18:34:43, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote
That's a lame excuse for having made fools of yourselves in public


Why do you do this to yourself, Gary? I refuse to accept that you are THAT oblivious, to not see a problem with you -of all people- writing it.

You had to know that everyone could point out that your bag of poo-pseudoscience has been ripped apart and laughed at on any platform you have presented it. There are entire discussion threads at reddit that seriously debate whether or not you are mentally challenged.

This delusion is really cringeworthy. The thing is, you KNOW you are wrong. That's why you steadfastly refuse to let peer-review tell you how much you misunderstand even the basis of science. If you thought there was ANYTHING there, you would have no reason not to submit yourself to that. We've been over this already.

Date: 2018/04/11 13:30:33, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote
I can't imagine how to better present what I have for a model/theory pertaining to the multicellular level intelligence to "peers".


You can't imagine a better way to present your nonsense/woowoo to "peers", huh? Oh, if only there were a standardized process for reviewing someone's ideas by some peers from the appropriate fields. Maybe we could add strict regulations, to ensure errors can be corrected through this process, and scientific rigour is upheld as much as possible. That kind of review-process would possibly even be better than posting on a random blog/internet forum! Someone should try to implement something like that, would really help science out!

(...He's not gonna get it, is he?)

Quote
In regards to understanding how our own mind works: from a perspective of each brain cell being way more intelligent (designer) than "scientists" ever imagined the progress made last weekend was a Stand By You moment even though it was for me explaining how something I have been experimenting with works, and some programming.


Ohh, so much cringe. I am embarassed for you Gary, since you seem to be entirely incapable of enough self-reflection to see how pathetic you are. Get help!



Quote
The Discovery Institute and Uncommon Descent are working towards their court-ordered psychological evaluation.


I would like to point out that the discovery institute is one of the only citations you have in your nonsense pdf. And not in a way to refute it, or contrast it, no as the very foundation to your own woo-woo. Which is not surprising, because it's religiously inspired woo-woo. It started as mainstream creationism (I can still link you to reddit discussion, where you try to argue Casey Luskin, famous member of the DI, was right in his anti-scientific assertions), then somewhere along the way, your addled brain decided to arbitrarily reject the Discovery Institute, but refused to accept that this meant rejecting your whole pseudoscience, which was born from it. So you changed literally nothing about it, but pretended that it somehow was completely different...

Also, this:

"If you say that the Discovery Institute is talking about "God" then so am I. The only difference is they have a policy to leave how God works up to the imagination, I don't. " -Gary Gaulin, Jan. 25 2017

Now you have a bunch of nonsense, the content or message of which you yourself can't even summarize or explain to anyone, because it is so inherently inconsistent and nonsensical.

Date: 2018/04/23 19:34:16, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote
Here's my trophy:
"trophy.png"


Oh God, everytime I think the tragic case of Gary Gaulin couldn't get any sadder, he surprises me with something so pathetic, I have to keep lowering the bar.

So, now we have him bragging about getting a graphic of a trophy, when asked for any scientific backing of his nonsense religious theory.
If you thought that was the height of it, then you haven't looked at the membership rate of this site. The badge is given to two new participating members of the forum every month...
But their growth rate is rather small, so, some months, they don't even get 2 new contributing members at all...
Meaning anyone who posts at all is pretty much guaranteed to get this picture of a trophy.

And here we have Gary being proud like a little child, to own this prestigous picture of a trophy...

Gary, I really feel bad for you. This is not me mocking you, I genuinely feel pity. Please stop this, spend your time on something productive, like your family. It will save you (and everyone else) so much cringe and pain.

Date: 2018/04/28 09:35:30, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
I would like to remind everyone, that when Gaulin talks about the "earlier discussed salmon behavior", THIS is what he means:

"The combined knowledge and behavior of all three intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may choose to stay to defend their nests "till death do they part""

The paragraph this comes from is one of my favorite bits of creationist woowoo, for how hilarious it is. He concludes with:

"For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has
through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from a conscious part of
us that our multicellular intelligence level (brain) may be able to sense coming from the other
intelligence levels we cannot directly experience, which at the genetic intelligence level has for
billions of years been alive, and is now still alive inside of us.."

Date: 2018/05/26 06:22:40, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
The point ===============>




Your head -> (o_O)


Or maybe you are just spouting gibberish to intentionally distract from the fact that you have precisely 0 arguments in defense of your other gibberish. Hard to tell at this point.

Date: 2018/06/01 06:41:55, Link
Author: coldfirephoenix
Quote (Texas Teach @ May 30 2018,15:59)
Quote (Henry J @ May 30 2018,15:12)
Quote (ChemiCat @ May 30 2018,12:53)
 
Quote
I am a resident of Massachusetts.


What crime has Massachusetts commited to deserve that?

Their capitol had a tea party.

And really, it was a bad idea to come down from the trees in the first place.

Love the Hitchhiker's reference!

 

 

 

=====