Frenemies of TalkRational:
Nontheist Nexus |  Rants'n'Raves |  Secular Cafe |  Council of Ex-Muslims |  The Skeptical Zone |  rationalia |  Rational Skepticism |  Atheists Today | 
TalkRational  

FAQ Rules Staff List Calendar RSS
Go Back   TalkRational > Discussion > Life Science Discussions

Life Science Discussions Biology, Natural History, etc.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-23-2010, 03:24 PM   #1024492  /  #1251
boba123
Senior Member
 
boba123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: On an Island of Paradise within a sea of Iniquity
Posts: 7,167
boba123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by boba123 View Post
GARY - YOU are still AVOIDING the SIX ADDRESSABLE MEMORY ADDRESS locations. Duh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by boba123 View Post
Hey Gary - YOU are STILL avoiding only SIX ADDRESSABLE MEMORY ADDRESS LOCATIONS !!!!

STOP AVOIDING THIS ISSUE !
And Bob avoids presenting evidence that is contrary to the theory by asking the same dumb question over and over an over again while refusing anything as an answer, even though it's a Computing 101 question that has nothing at all to do with the scientific content of the theory.

No evidence against the theory has ever been presented by Bob either.
YOU LIE - GARY.

THIS IS FROM YOUR so-called THEORY - YOUR so-called THEORY -

Quote:
Originally Posted by boba123 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazalus View Post

Yeah, I get the impression that people are waiting on you to give that... until then, why ask for Febble's?
It is first summed up in the introduction then in following sections is in great detail explained:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theory of Intelligent Design
Introduction

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, where from intelligence is emergence of another which is in its own image. Here, nonrandom forces/behavior of matter cause a progression of self-assembling and self-similar emergent behaviors where each is an increasingly complex and autonomous confidence driven self-learning intelligence. Large numbers of this intelligence at one level automatically causes fractal-similar emergence of a new intelligence at the next level such that molecular intelligence causes cellular intelligence, cellular intelligence causes multicellular intelligence, and multicellular intelligence causes respective collective intelligence (a society). Computer models show this common to all levels intelligence system has a mechanism that reduces to four necessary requirements. (1) Something for intelligence to control (motors, muscles, metabolic cycle). (2) Sensory addressable memory to store motor actions in response. (3) Feedback to gauge failure or success in actions taken. (4) A guess mechanism to try a new action. Good guesses as in crossover exchange safely controls variation to produce offspring each different from each other (not clones) and gene level recombination of small conserved domains which are the nuts and bolts and motor parts of complex molecular machinery that all together keep living things alive.

From the perspective of intelligence, a genome is not a sewing "pattern" or “blueprint” showing each part and where each new cell that divides out must go and what to differentiate into. In the social amoeba (slime molds) along with a self-replicating centrosomular control system for migration behavior their genome encodes for extremely adaptable cells which require no pattern to achieve their final form. Depending on conditions, in the process of each meeting their needs these social cells intuitively work together to form streaming or solid multicellular colonies of various designs. In human learning, newly produced social stem cells of the brain form new synaptic encoded neural networks. In each human social cell its epigenetically controlled genome greatly changes its gene expression in response to learning to serve a useful purpose, in their highly specialized cellular society.

Designs that successfully reproduce remain in the collective genetic memory of the population to keep going the billions year old learning process that is the cycle of life where through continual reproduction of previous state of genetic memory one replication at a time builds upon previous designs in memory. Thus a cladogram of resultant lineage shows a progression of adapting designs evidenced by the fossil record where never once was there not a predecessor of like design present in memory for the descendant design to have come from. It is this progression of intelligent causality from nonrandom subatomic behavior in matter that makes possible the complexity of cells, speciation, Cambrian Explosion and all existing biodiversity.

http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/
Claims that I never provided one are a diversion from reality.
Hey Gery - it CERTAINLY APPEARS TO ME that YOU are hangin' your hat on what you highlight above in red. A number of folk have called you on your various statements following the post (post # 741) that I quote above - and YOU, Gary, appear to keep COMMING BACK to what you have highlighted in red above.

Thus, I have taken just a tad - of what YOU have highlighted in red above - and placed this tad in large letters.

As I explained to YOU - and others - in an earlier post - the reason that I chose to use memory mapping and addressable memory to show YOU - and others - what a pile of crap your so-called Theory really IS and what a pile of crap your Generator thingy really IS - is that this memory mapping and addressable memory thing IS the easiest way for me - to explain to a general TR audiance - what and where the crap resides and is all about.

Gary - YOU, of all people, SHOULD remember a large number of posts that I have made within this thread - about memory issues ! I'm sure that a lot of other folk remember my postings dealing with memory issues.

AND Gary - YOU have NOT YET RESPONDED TO ANY OF MY POSTINGS ABOUT MEMORY ISSUES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, Gary - since YOU hang your hat, so to speak, on the stuff that YOU, Gary, highlight in red in YOUR post that I quote above - I would NOW like YOU, Gary - to address ALL of the posts that I have made on various memory issues !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SO GARY - WHAT ARE THE SIX ADDRESSABLE MEMORY ADDRESSES ?
__________________
MattShizzle - using the word "MORON" - http://talkrational.org/showthread.p...772#post914772-- "Ignore the assholes. Assholes are the price we pay for being able to tell assholes they are assholes." = Febble - http://talkrational.org/showthread.p...599#post958599-- "Im a Satanist, Israel is a terrorist state, Hamas is the good guys." = S'hitman - http://talkrational.org/showthread.p...61#post1454961
boba123 is offline   topbottom
Old 07-23-2010, 03:33 PM   #1024506  /  #1252
Gary Gaulin
Senior Member
 
Gary Gaulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,877
Gary Gaulin
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boba123 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by boba123 View Post
GARY - YOU are still AVOIDING the SIX ADDRESSABLE MEMORY ADDRESS locations. Duh?
And Bob avoids presenting evidence that is contrary to the theory by asking the same dumb question over and over an over again while refusing anything as an answer, even though it's a Computing 101 question that has nothing at all to do with the scientific content of the theory.

No evidence against the theory has ever been presented by Bob either.
YOU LIE - GARY.

THIS IS FROM YOUR so-called THEORY - YOUR so-called THEORY -

Quote:
Originally Posted by boba123 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post

It is first summed up in the introduction then in following sections is in great detail explained:



Claims that I never provided one are a diversion from reality.
Hey Gery - it CERTAINLY APPEARS TO ME that YOU are hangin' your hat on what you highlight above in red. A number of folk have called you on your various statements following the post (post # 741) that I quote above - and YOU, Gary, appear to keep COMMING BACK to what you have highlighted in red above.

Thus, I have taken just a tad - of what YOU have highlighted in red above - and placed this tad in large letters.

As I explained to YOU - and others - in an earlier post - the reason that I chose to use memory mapping and addressable memory to show YOU - and others - what a pile of crap your so-called Theory really IS and what a pile of crap your Generator thingy really IS - is that this memory mapping and addressable memory thing IS the easiest way for me - to explain to a general TR audiance - what and where the crap resides and is all about.

Gary - YOU, of all people, SHOULD remember a large number of posts that I have made within this thread - about memory issues ! I'm sure that a lot of other folk remember my postings dealing with memory issues.

AND Gary - YOU have NOT YET RESPONDED TO ANY OF MY POSTINGS ABOUT MEMORY ISSUES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, Gary - since YOU hang your hat, so to speak, on the stuff that YOU, Gary, highlight in red in YOUR post that I quote above - I would NOW like YOU, Gary - to address ALL of the posts that I have made on various memory issues !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SO GARY - WHAT ARE THE SIX ADDRESSABLE MEMORY ADDRESSES ?
Go to hell, creep.

Last edited by Gary Gaulin; 07-23-2010 at 03:39 PM. Reason: Make type larger font to make it findable in Bob's turd droppins.
Gary Gaulin is offline   topbottom
Old 07-23-2010, 03:38 PM   #1024510  /  #1253
ericmurphy
Uneducated Lout
 
ericmurphy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 16,730
ericmurphy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by eversbane View Post
The basic (unsupported) premise seems to be that predictability cannot emerge from unpredictability.

Perhaps Gigi should review the epic random threads.
There is no evidence against the theory in this reply either.
Gary, there is no evidence that would contradict your "theory," because your "theory" is unfalsifiable. It's not coherent enough to be falsifiable.

We've already been through this. You could not think of a single prediction your "theory" makes, nor could you think of a single observation which would in your view falsify it.

In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, your "theory" isn't even wrong.
__________________
Atheism: not recommended for those without a moral compass.
ericmurphy is offline   topbottom
Old 07-23-2010, 03:42 PM   #1024519  /  #1254
eversbane
Big Time Nerd.
 
eversbane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PETM
Posts: 25,039
eversbane
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by eversbane View Post
The basic (unsupported) premise seems to be that predictability cannot emerge from unpredictability.

Perhaps Gigi should review the epic random threads.
There is no evidence against the theory in this reply either.
Your basic premise is flawed and unsupported (unsupportable).

As to evidence: you might want to gain an understanding of the scientific method before you wander into a science forum.
__________________
"probability isn't an absolute fact about the world"
-Febble
"None of these labels are very homogeneous."
-Febble
"equilibrium points are not dense in the phase space."
-el guapo
eversbane is online now   topbottom
Old 07-23-2010, 03:42 PM   #1024520  /  #1255
ericmurphy
Uneducated Lout
 
ericmurphy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 16,730
ericmurphy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericmurphy View Post
Twelve hundred messages, and Gary still can't tell us what his theory does. It's far from clear that he himself has the slightest idea what it does.
And of course ericmurphy who calls themself the "Uneducated Lout" is as usual uneducated-lout clueless too. At least they have ways to let you know why they write junk like this, that they themselves might know is uneducated rubbish.
You could show me wrong simply by giving a short description of your theory, Gary. I can give a concise description of evolutionary theory, or general or special relativity, or probably even quantum theory, in a short sentence or a short paragraph. You can't seem to describe your theory at all. You can't even tell us what phenomenon or phenomena (which you seem to think is the singular of phenomenon) it supposedly explains.

Which is why virtually everyone who posts to this thread makes the same comment about your theory: it's incomprehensible.

And it's apparently just as incomprehensible to you as it is to everyone else.
__________________
Atheism: not recommended for those without a moral compass.
ericmurphy is offline   topbottom
Old 07-23-2010, 03:49 PM   #1024527  /  #1256
Gary Gaulin
Senior Member
 
Gary Gaulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,877
Gary Gaulin
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericmurphy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by eversbane View Post
The basic (unsupported) premise seems to be that predictability cannot emerge from unpredictability.

Perhaps Gigi should review the epic random threads.
There is no evidence against the theory in this reply either.
Gary, there is no evidence that would contradict your "theory," because your "theory" is unfalsifiable. It's not coherent enough to be falsifiable.

We've already been through this. You could not think of a single prediction your "theory" makes, nor could you think of a single observation which would in your view falsify it.

In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, your "theory" isn't even wrong.
That is NOT a scientific excuse for having no evidence to the contrary, it is pretending to have evidence when you don't. Like with Bob's tactic it might fool some of the people some of the time, but I think most are now understanding what is going on here.
Gary Gaulin is offline   topbottom
Old 07-23-2010, 03:52 PM   #1024534  /  #1257
Gary Gaulin
Senior Member
 
Gary Gaulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,877
Gary Gaulin
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eversbane View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by eversbane View Post
The basic (unsupported) premise seems to be that predictability cannot emerge from unpredictability.

Perhaps Gigi should review the epic random threads.
There is no evidence against the theory in this reply either.

Your basic premise is flawed and unsupported (unsupportable).


As to evidence: you might want to gain an understanding of the scientific method before you wander into a science forum.
In your own words explain what the "basic premise" is, and exactly what is unsupported.

And in your words please explain the "scientific method".

Thank you..
Gary Gaulin is offline   topbottom
Old 07-23-2010, 03:57 PM   #1024539  /  #1258
eversbane
Big Time Nerd.
 
eversbane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PETM
Posts: 25,039
eversbane
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by eversbane View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post

There is no evidence against the theory in this reply either.
Your basic premise is flawed and unsupported (unsupportable).

As to evidence: you might want to gain an understanding of the scientific method before you wander into a science forum.
In your own words explain what the "basic premise" is, and exactly what is unsupported.

And in your words please explain the "scientific method".
Your 'thank you' was insincere.

Your basic premise was already stated:
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
The basic (unsupported) premise seems to be that predictability cannot emerge from unpredictability.
If you don't know the scientific method, get out. This is a science forum.
__________________
"probability isn't an absolute fact about the world"
-Febble
"None of these labels are very homogeneous."
-Febble
"equilibrium points are not dense in the phase space."
-el guapo
eversbane is online now   topbottom
Old 07-23-2010, 04:01 PM   #1024542  /  #1259
eversbane
Big Time Nerd.
 
eversbane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PETM
Posts: 25,039
eversbane
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericmurphy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post

There is no evidence against the theory in this reply either.
Gary, there is no evidence that would contradict your "theory," because your "theory" is unfalsifiable. It's not coherent enough to be falsifiable.

We've already been through this. You could not think of a single prediction your "theory" makes, nor could you think of a single observation which would in your view falsify it.

In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, your "theory" isn't even wrong.
That is NOT a scientific excuse for having no evidence to the contrary, it is pretending to have evidence when you don't. Like with Bob's tactic it might fool some of the people some of the time, but I think most are now understanding what is going on here.
There is no scientific refutation of an unscietific conclusion.

This call for scientific refutation of unsupportable babbling is the last refuge of the terminally confused. You have no idea where your thought processes have led you, you cannot explain where you are, and no one can find you. You are lost.
__________________
"probability isn't an absolute fact about the world"
-Febble
"None of these labels are very homogeneous."
-Febble
"equilibrium points are not dense in the phase space."
-el guapo
eversbane is online now   topbottom
Old 07-23-2010, 04:07 PM   #1024551  /  #1260
Crazalus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,222
Crazalus
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
And Bob avoids presenting evidence that is contrary to the theory by asking the same dumb question over and over an over again while refusing anything as an answer, even though it's a Computing 101 question that has nothing at all to do with the scientific content of the theory.
Jesus fucking christ Gary... it's a major foundation that the scientific content is built upon! If you can't provide a major foundation, if you have a massive hole in a major foundation... a foundation that your theory relies upon, then you don't actually have a theory...
Quote:
No evidence against the theory has ever been presented by Bob either.
Provide a fucking answer to his vital question... until you do, you don't have a theory for anyone to present evidence against!

Hell, maybe you could try telling us what the fuck your theory is about... you're claiming it's both the theory that there must be some supernatural intelligent designer (or are you finally going to drop the DI crap?) AND that there is nothing supernatural, but intelligence requires a design.



As it is, I've worked out one basic premise that you're working from... that people here are going to be dumb enough to fall for your intentionally contradictory and confusing wankery.

You want to prove that wrong? Then stop contradicting yourself, stop using terms that you're making up definitions for but not telling anyone what the definitions are, and stop treating people here like they are thick as pig shit when they are asking serious and vital questions!





And that includes the youtube videos...
Crazalus is offline   topbottom
Old 07-23-2010, 04:19 PM   #1024561  /  #1261
Gary Gaulin
Senior Member
 
Gary Gaulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,877
Gary Gaulin
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazalus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
And Bob avoids presenting evidence that is contrary to the theory by asking the same dumb question over and over an over again while refusing anything as an answer, even though it's a Computing 101 question that has nothing at all to do with the scientific content of the theory.
Jesus fucking christ Gary... it's a major foundation that the scientific content is built upon! If you can't provide a major foundation, if you have a massive hole in a major foundation... a foundation that your theory relies upon, then you don't actually have a theory...
Explain how Bob's "ADDRESSING" question in regards to a computer model that works just fine regardless of Bob's problem, pertains to what you call the "major foundation that the scientific content is built upon" which by the way pertains to molecular/biological "intelligent cause" as stated in the "premise" of the theory.
Gary Gaulin is offline   topbottom
Old 07-23-2010, 04:29 PM   #1024569  /  #1262
Crazalus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,222
Crazalus
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazalus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
And Bob avoids presenting evidence that is contrary to the theory by asking the same dumb question over and over an over again while refusing anything as an answer, even though it's a Computing 101 question that has nothing at all to do with the scientific content of the theory.
Jesus fucking christ Gary... it's a major foundation that the scientific content is built upon! If you can't provide a major foundation, if you have a massive hole in a major foundation... a foundation that your theory relies upon, then you don't actually have a theory...
Explain how Bob's "ADDRESSING" question in regards to a computer model that works just fine regardless of Bob's problem, pertains to what you call the "major foundation that the scientific content is built upon" which by the way pertains to molecular/biological "intelligent cause" as stated in the "premise" of the theory.
Your theory is based on the model, yes?

You need to understand how and why the model works to formulate a theory based on it...

You consistently refuse to provide an answer to a question that is vital to any understanding of how and why that model works...

The problem is not whether the model works... the problem is whether you understand HOW and WHY it works! If you cannot show that understanding, then you don't have a foundation to build a theory upon... and that theory falls apart.



And can I now assume that you no longer wish to use the DI explanation of their theory as an explanation of what your theory is about? Then could you please give a short explanation of what your theory is about? (and while you're at it... kindly tell us what definition you are using for the term "intelligent/intelligence")
Crazalus is offline   topbottom
Old 07-23-2010, 04:43 PM   #1024583  /  #1263
Gary Gaulin
Senior Member
 
Gary Gaulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,877
Gary Gaulin
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazalus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazalus View Post
Jesus fucking christ Gary... it's a major foundation that the scientific content is built upon! If you can't provide a major foundation, if you have a massive hole in a major foundation... a foundation that your theory relies upon, then you don't actually have a theory...
Explain how Bob's "ADDRESSING" question in regards to a computer model that works just fine regardless of Bob's problem, pertains to what you call the "major foundation that the scientific content is built upon" which by the way pertains to molecular/biological "intelligent cause" as stated in the "premise" of the theory.
Your theory is based on the model, yes?

You need to understand how and why the model works to formulate a theory based on it...

You consistently refuse to provide an answer to a question that is vital to any understanding of how and why that model works...

The problem is not whether the model works... the problem is whether you understand HOW and WHY it works! If you cannot show that understanding, then you don't have a foundation to build a theory upon... and that theory falls apart.


And can I now assume that you no longer wish to use the DI explanation of their theory as an explanation of what your theory is about? Then could you please give a short explanation of what your theory is about? (and while you're at it... kindly tell us what definition you are using for the term "intelligent/intelligence")
You did not explain what Bob's problem has to do with the theory, it was a bad attempt at a pompous lecture from authority with a condescending "You need to understand how and why the model works to formulate a theory based on it" not an explanation of any problem with the theory, at all.

Answer my question please. You suggested that Bob found a problem that destroys the theory. Please detail this supposed problem and how that proves the theory is "incoherent" so that (either way) others will know what you and Bob are talking about.
Gary Gaulin is offline   topbottom
Old 07-23-2010, 05:01 PM   #1024597  /  #1264
Steviepinhead
Senior Member
 
Steviepinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 31,113
Steviepinhead
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericmurphy View Post
Twelve hundred messages, and Gary still can't tell us what his theory does. It's far from clear that he himself has the slightest idea what it does.
And of course ericmurphy who calls themself the "Uneducated Lout" is as usual uneducated-lout clueless too. At least they have ways to let you know why they write junk like this, that they themselves might know is uneducated rubbish.
I run into the occasional humor-deprived wanker who seems convinced that he's invented a marvelous new funny by calling me a "pinhead," too.

Go head on, Bre'r Fox, and throw me in that briar patch!
Steviepinhead is offline   topbottom
Old 07-23-2010, 05:02 PM   #1024600  /  #1265
Steviepinhead
Senior Member
 
Steviepinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 31,113
Steviepinhead
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by boba123 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post

And Bob avoids presenting evidence that is contrary to the theory by asking the same dumb question over and over an over again while refusing anything as an answer, even though it's a Computing 101 question that has nothing at all to do with the scientific content of the theory.

No evidence against the theory has ever been presented by Bob either.
YOU LIE - GARY.

THIS IS FROM YOUR so-called THEORY - YOUR so-called THEORY -

Quote:
Originally Posted by boba123 View Post

Hey Gery - it CERTAINLY APPEARS TO ME that YOU are hangin' your hat on what you highlight above in red. A number of folk have called you on your various statements following the post (post # 741) that I quote above - and YOU, Gary, appear to keep COMMING BACK to what you have highlighted in red above.

Thus, I have taken just a tad - of what YOU have highlighted in red above - and placed this tad in large letters.

As I explained to YOU - and others - in an earlier post - the reason that I chose to use memory mapping and addressable memory to show YOU - and others - what a pile of crap your so-called Theory really IS and what a pile of crap your Generator thingy really IS - is that this memory mapping and addressable memory thing IS the easiest way for me - to explain to a general TR audiance - what and where the crap resides and is all about.

Gary - YOU, of all people, SHOULD remember a large number of posts that I have made within this thread - about memory issues ! I'm sure that a lot of other folk remember my postings dealing with memory issues.

AND Gary - YOU have NOT YET RESPONDED TO ANY OF MY POSTINGS ABOUT MEMORY ISSUES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, Gary - since YOU hang your hat, so to speak, on the stuff that YOU, Gary, highlight in red in YOUR post that I quote above - I would NOW like YOU, Gary - to address ALL of the posts that I have made on various memory issues !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SO GARY - WHAT ARE THE SIX ADDRESSABLE MEMORY ADDRESSES ?
Go to hell, creep.
Touchy, touchy...

First rule of internet trolling: never let them know when they're getting to you.
Steviepinhead is offline   topbottom
Old 07-23-2010, 05:11 PM   #1024609  /  #1266
kombucha
reputed to be incomparable
 
kombucha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,570
kombucha
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steviepinhead View Post
Touchy, touchy...

First rule of internet trolling: never let them know when they're getting to you.
TR is basically the best evidence ever for this rule.
kombucha is offline   topbottom
Old 07-23-2010, 06:38 PM   #1024762  /  #1267
Gary Gaulin
Senior Member
 
Gary Gaulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,877
Gary Gaulin
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eversbane View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by eversbane View Post
Your basic premise is flawed and unsupported (unsupportable).

As to evidence: you might want to gain an understanding of the scientific method before you wander into a science forum.
In your own words explain what the "basic premise" is, and exactly what is unsupported.

And in your words please explain the "scientific method".
Your 'thank you' was insincere.

Your basic premise was already stated:
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
The basic (unsupported) premise seems to be that predictability cannot emerge from unpredictability.
If you don't know the scientific method, get out. This is a science forum.
No evidence against the theory there either. But since when did the "premise" of the "Theory of Intelligent Design" change from "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" to the new premise that you stated which is "predictability cannot emerge from unpredictability."?

It's a good thing I'm in this forum. Maybe with a few more weeks of my having to regularly reexplain it you'll know what a "premise" of a theory is.
Gary Gaulin is offline   topbottom
Old 07-23-2010, 07:04 PM   #1024803  /  #1268
davidm
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,205
davidm
Talking

Thanks for all the lulz, Gary.
davidm is offline   topbottom
Old 07-23-2010, 07:06 PM   #1024808  /  #1269
eversbane
Big Time Nerd.
 
eversbane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PETM
Posts: 25,039
eversbane
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by eversbane View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post

In your own words explain what the "basic premise" is, and exactly what is unsupported.

And in your words please explain the "scientific method".
Your 'thank you' was insincere.

Your basic premise was already stated:
Quote:
Originally Posted by "me"
The basic (unsupported) premise seems to be that predictability cannot emerge from unpredictability.
If you don't know the scientific method, get out. This is a science forum.
No evidence against the theory there either. But since when did the "premise" of the "Theory of Intelligent Design" change from "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" to the new premise that you stated which is "predictability cannot emerge from unpredictability."?

It's a good thing I'm in this forum. Maybe with a few more weeks of my having to regularly reexplain it you'll know what a "premise" of a theory is.
__________________
"probability isn't an absolute fact about the world"
-Febble
"None of these labels are very homogeneous."
-Febble
"equilibrium points are not dense in the phase space."
-el guapo
eversbane is online now   topbottom
Old 07-23-2010, 07:09 PM   #1024812  /  #1270
Crazalus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,222
Crazalus
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazalus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post

Explain how Bob's "ADDRESSING" question in regards to a computer model that works just fine regardless of Bob's problem, pertains to what you call the "major foundation that the scientific content is built upon" which by the way pertains to molecular/biological "intelligent cause" as stated in the "premise" of the theory.
Your theory is based on the model, yes?

You need to understand how and why the model works to formulate a theory based on it...

You consistently refuse to provide an answer to a question that is vital to any understanding of how and why that model works...

The problem is not whether the model works... the problem is whether you understand HOW and WHY it works! If you cannot show that understanding, then you don't have a foundation to build a theory upon... and that theory falls apart.


And can I now assume that you no longer wish to use the DI explanation of their theory as an explanation of what your theory is about? Then could you please give a short explanation of what your theory is about? (and while you're at it... kindly tell us what definition you are using for the term "intelligent/intelligence")
You did not explain what Bob's problem has to do with the theory,
You are unable or unwilling to show that you understand how and why your model works in sufficient detail... a level of detail that is (at best) the absolute minimum level of detail to be able to explain to others how and why your model works...

As you have based your theory on how and why that model works, a lack of understanding of how and why that model works reduces your theory to guesswork.

I had hoped that I wouldn't have to spell it out in such simple terms, as I assumed you had sufficient intelligence to understand what is, in fact, a simple concept and an incredibly obvious flaw in your theory. I will not make that mistake again, and I shall henceforth assume that you are retarded... thus any further posts will be dumbed down to that level. (satisfied? You shouldn't be...)
Quote:
it was a bad attempt at a pompous lecture from authority with a condescending "You need to understand how and why the model works to formulate a theory based on it"
Boy... you really are playing the idiot... Gary, if you are formulating a theory based on how and why something works, then not being able to fucking explain how and why that something works means you don't have a fucking clue and are just spouting off garbage.

Pompous and condescending? Lecture from Authority? Have you even tried reading your own posts Gary? There's a saying you should consider about now... it deals with Pots, Kettles, and the colour Black.
Quote:
not an explanation of any problem with the theory, at all.
Either playing a retard, or you are a retard... I not only explained what the problem was, I pointed out how you could solve the problem.
Quote:
Answer my question please. You suggested that Bob found a problem that destroys the theory. Please detail this supposed problem and how that proves the theory is "incoherent" so that (either way) others will know what you and Bob are talking about.
Done so... both above, and in the post you replied to. If you can't understand the incredibly simple concept I highlighted, then you're not doing anything even close to science... you're just playing with guesses and dressing them up in "sciencey" sounding words.


Of course, if you think that the model has nothing to do with your theory, then maybe you could tell us why you insist on spamming the fucking thing in this thread!
Crazalus is offline   topbottom
Old 07-23-2010, 07:12 PM   #1024819  /  #1271
Crazalus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,222
Crazalus
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
It's a good thing I'm in this forum. Maybe with a few more weeks of my having to regularly reexplain it I'll realize I'm an idiot.
Fify.
Crazalus is offline   topbottom
Old 07-23-2010, 07:31 PM   #1024838  /  #1272
Gary Gaulin
Senior Member
 
Gary Gaulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,877
Gary Gaulin
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazalus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
It's a good thing I'm in this forum. Maybe with a few more weeks of my having to regularly reexplain it I'll realize I'm an idiot.
Fify.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
It's a good thing I'm in this forum. Maybe with a few more weeks of my having to regularly reexplain it you'll know what a "premise" of a theory is.
I guess that when misrepresentation of the theory and even the pompous lectures from ignorance fail, their scientific method requires resorting to word-for-word quoting of things the author never stated.
Gary Gaulin is offline   topbottom
Old 07-23-2010, 07:36 PM   #1024845  /  #1273
ericmurphy
Uneducated Lout
 
ericmurphy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 16,730
ericmurphy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericmurphy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post

There is no evidence against the theory in this reply either.
Gary, there is no evidence that would contradict your "theory," because your "theory" is unfalsifiable. It's not coherent enough to be falsifiable.

We've already been through this. You could not think of a single prediction your "theory" makes, nor could you think of a single observation which would in your view falsify it.

In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, your "theory" isn't even wrong.
That is NOT a scientific excuse for having no evidence to the contrary, it is pretending to have evidence when you don't.
I don't need a "scientific excuse" to find evidence to the contrary of a non-theory, Gary. Your "theory" is incomprehensible crap that describes nothing, explains nothing, and predicts nothing. You can't even tell us what your "theory" is about.

Quote:
Like with Bob's tactic it might fool some of the people some of the time, but I think most are now understanding what is going on here.
Oh, really? Then why is it that everyone here seems to be agreeing with me that your "theory" isn't a theory at all? And why is it that NO ONE here is agreeing with you that your theory actually explains anything? It doesn't describe anything, it doesn't explain anything, it makes no predictions, and is unfalsifiable woo. You can't even tell us what your "theory" is a theory of!

You're hopeless at this "science" stuff, Gary. You should go back to whatever it is that you actually do. What was that, exactly? Didn't you say you were a printer? By that, do you mean a pressman? Someone who operates lithographic presses? Or maybe web presses?
__________________
Atheism: not recommended for those without a moral compass.
ericmurphy is offline   topbottom
Old 07-23-2010, 07:46 PM   #1024857  /  #1274
ericmurphy
Uneducated Lout
 
ericmurphy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 16,730
ericmurphy
Default

Post after post from poster after poster points out to Gary the same thing: he doesn't have a theory. He has a dripping woo-ball of incomprehensible crap that is essentially entirely without meaning. Then he complains that no one has presented any "evidence contrary to" his dripping woo-ball of incomprehensible crap.

Buy a clue, Gary. Or, if you can't afford to buy one, at least rent one.
__________________
Atheism: not recommended for those without a moral compass.
ericmurphy is offline   topbottom
Old 07-23-2010, 08:00 PM   #1024873  /  #1275
Gary Gaulin
Senior Member
 
Gary Gaulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,877
Gary Gaulin
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericmurphy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gaulin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericmurphy View Post

Gary, there is no evidence that would contradict your "theory," because your "theory" is unfalsifiable. It's not coherent enough to be falsifiable.

We've already been through this. You could not think of a single prediction your "theory" makes, nor could you think of a single observation which would in your view falsify it.

In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, your "theory" isn't even wrong.
That is NOT a scientific excuse for having no evidence to the contrary, it is pretending to have evidence when you don't.
I don't need a "scientific excuse" to find evidence to the contrary of a non-theory, Gary. Your "theory" is incomprehensible crap that describes nothing, explains nothing, and predicts nothing. You can't even tell us what your "theory" is about.

Quote:
Like with Bob's tactic it might fool some of the people some of the time, but I think most are now understanding what is going on here.
Oh, really? Then why is it that everyone here seems to be agreeing with me that your "theory" isn't a theory at all? And why is it that NO ONE here is agreeing with you that your theory actually explains anything? It doesn't describe anything, it doesn't explain anything, it makes no predictions, and is unfalsifiable woo. You can't even tell us what your "theory" is a theory of!

You're hopeless at this "science" stuff, Gary. You should go back to whatever it is that you actually do. What was that, exactly? Didn't you say you were a printer? By that, do you mean a pressman? Someone who operates lithographic presses? Or maybe web presses?
Yes I work in the graphic arts industry as well as the dinosaur tracksite but there is little money in science and the theory is consuming. The economic crisis trashed the graphic arts sector too but I still get some hours running offset/letterpress, machinery repair/rebuilding/rewiring and other technical tasks when all others at the shop don't know how to get something running then have to call me to fix it.

Anyway, also from theory:

Quote:
HOW A SCIENTIFIC THEORY WORKS

A “scientific theory” is a coherent explanation of how a phenomena works. For a theory to be coherent there must be experiments (computer model, observation) to test all conclusions.

The "premise" of a theory is a statement that in as few words as possible sums up the phenomena to be explained. Whatever else that is to be said must be made irrelevant otherwise it is too easy to allow rumor and misinterpretations to define a proposed theory instead of its premise.

This is the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design:

Source: Discovery Institute http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
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.


The phrase "intelligent cause" is the name of the phenomena to be explained. The text of the theory “defines” intelligent cause to be similar to "emergent" causation. The mechanism producing this emergence must here be explained as an "intelligent" phenomena for it to be a coherent theory, hence "intelligent cause".

In science something either exists or it does not. The word “supernatural” has no meaning other than the “unknown” or “unexplained”. Therefore no part of the premise or text of a theory may be given supernatural meaning, by anyone on any side of a controversy.

The word terminology used in each theory should reflect the areas of science of the phenomena they cover, not each other. As a result the Theory Of Intelligent Design is an “origin of life” theory that requires terminology found primarily in robotics and Artificial Intelligence and never once mentions or borrows from Evolutionary Theory.

Words may not be used synonymously with each other unless the premise or the text of the theory makes it clear that both words are interchangeable. For example to falsely suggest that “intelligent cause” must be one of a number of deities explained in religious scriptures the word “cause” is often replaced using the word “agent” to produce the new phrase “intelligent agent” which can then be defined as they please to suit their argument. The only scientific response is to state that the rules do not allow this here, therefore a scientific reply is impossible and cannot be given until they rephrase their statement using terminology found in its premise (or where applicable the text of the theory).

All theories are “tentative” therefore can never be “proven true” or can be a “fact”. When tested a theory can only be “proven false” in which case it is incoherent, or again “holds true” in which case it remains a coherent theory. As is the case of Superstring Theory it is coherent enough to be a viable and “useful” theory even though there are known to be incoherencies in areas that are still being researched.

Karl Popper is known for applying philosophy to science to argue against the prevailing views of the scientific method by advancing empirical “falsification”. This made for a useful debate as to what science is. But in reality, finding a rabbit fossil from the Cambrian era would certainly puzzle scientists but the genetic algorithm models would still work fine. Therefore the “theory of evolution” would not be thrown right out of science just because of incoherence in a small part of the fossil record. One has to “believe” that falsification was good enough, which is a judgment call that easily leads to endless unproductive argument that can slow down even stop a theory from being written when critics automatically refuse any falsification no matter how good it is. Though there are many ways to as per Karl Popper falsify the Theory Of Intelligent Design it would be beyond the purpose of this writing to present all of that here.

For a theory to be “useful” it must make “predictions”. Otherwise it is “useless”. There is no requirement there be a list of them included in the text of the theory. But predictions should be included where they help explain what to look for in an experiment.

The scientific information is placed in a “logical construct” that provides a place for everything, to make it easy to put everything in its proper place. For example in this theory each emergent level of organization has its own “section” each with four “subsections” which represent the four requirements for “intelligence” and the first requirement is “something to control” such as robot motors, biological body, or at the molecular scale controlling cellular functions. When a egg yolk and red-cabbage solution coacervate experiment required explaining somewhere in the theory there was no guessing which of the four requirements was being witnessed when looking through a microscope at the twitching body without a brain coacervates. This made it obvious where exactly in the entire text of the theory to place coacervates. Categorizing as one of a number of possible sections with four requirements also helped show what is important as they relate to the origin of life without having to relate them to cells, which they are not. Without a logical construct like this what is most important to understand is likely impossible to explain, is instead easily misinterpreted.

The second part of the premise that follows the comma "not an undirected process such as natural selection." describes what the theory does not explain as the cause. We can here remove this part from the sentence leaving us only the part it does have to explain which is “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,”

To make it easier to gauge how closely the theory is following its premise the shortened sentence is completed by adding a short summation of what the theory can conclude pertaining to the phenomena of intelligent cause. When we are on the right track there is a complete sentence that makes more sense together. When we are on the wrong track the sentence makes less sense together. In the case of a theory breaking a rule of science such as "...an intelligent cause that is supernatural therefore it cannot be tested" we can see right away that it is not a scientific theory, repeatable experiments to test the phenomena must be possible from the explanation.

In a discipline such as science most are conditioned to do things one certain way using established theories. This can make it appear that a new one is not needed. It will then be ignored. To help prevent this complacency the rules of science do not allow dismissing a theory based on what was previously said about it. But at the time it does not always seem worth taking seriously. When almost all are doing the same it appears to be impossible for all to be wrong. Authors here work very hard and probably endure ridicule for their “unaccepted” theory to eventually become “accepted” which might not even be in their lifetime.

An existing theory is never evidence for or evidence against another. Where each explain entirely different phenomena it is possible for both to be coherent.
Gary Gaulin is offline   topbottom
Closed Thread

  TalkRational > Discussion > Life Science Discussions

Tags
bart has mere 319 friends, boba schools gary bigtime, conquest of gaul, definitely a mental, don't mention sanshou, dosed: fears the love, dunning kruger, gary collect nand gates, gary ducks predictions, gary king of science, i heart dosed, kook, member since 2008, midichlorian count, retarded ass thread, timecube 2, video nasties, where is dosed?

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2008 - 2014, TalkRational.org