news aggregator
The Bathroom Wall
Post by Henry J
Quote There has just got to be some lesbian wiccan
Willow Rosenberg?
Quote There has just got to be some lesbian wiccan
Willow Rosenberg?
Categories: AE Public BB
The Bathroom Wall
Post by REC
I saw his own church excommunicated him.
There has just got to be some lesbian wiccan or *gasp* a gay humanist to give him a pauper's burial?
I saw his own church excommunicated him.
There has just got to be some lesbian wiccan or *gasp* a gay humanist to give him a pauper's burial?
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Mar. 20 2014,15:19)At the Kurzweil link you provided, we see that CNOT wants to get in on some grant money being floated by the Paul Allen Foundation for AI research. He wants sponsorship from an academic institution, but he doesn't want to collaborate with anyone:
Quote The budget is supposed to be 3 pages long, which seems excessive for the kind of research I had envisioned (one guy working alone on his laptop, maybe from home).
The way the real world of people and business work nowadays (i.e., with extreme ineptitude, inefficiency, unethical behavior, and illegal behavior), I am leery of any kind of collaborative work anymore. *Always* there are glitches, usually major, show-stopper glitches, usually in such profusion that it becomes ridiculous. I'm going to start counting and documenting these glitches here as they occur, partly out of sordid humor, and partly for those who don't believe how messed up bureaucracy and people are now. I fully predict that there is going to be some huge, ridiculous glitch that either threatens or negates all my efforts on this.
They said "excessive for the kind of research I had envisioned (one guy working alone on his laptop, maybe from home)."
From what I read in several threads: They are currently trying to organize group development of a new spatial reasoning model for AI, would rather not have to get overly into neurological details as in the Grid Network topic, and are most enjoying seeing what happens where they try to fund something like that.
At least they're trying to get something funded, while at the same getting the word out that we're around.
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Mar. 20 2014,15:19)At the Kurzweil link you provided, we see that CNOT wants to get in on some grant money being floated by the Paul Allen Foundation for AI research. He wants sponsorship from an academic institution, but he doesn't want to collaborate with anyone:
Quote The budget is supposed to be 3 pages long, which seems excessive for the kind of research I had envisioned (one guy working alone on his laptop, maybe from home).
The way the real world of people and business work nowadays (i.e., with extreme ineptitude, inefficiency, unethical behavior, and illegal behavior), I am leery of any kind of collaborative work anymore. *Always* there are glitches, usually major, show-stopper glitches, usually in such profusion that it becomes ridiculous. I'm going to start counting and documenting these glitches here as they occur, partly out of sordid humor, and partly for those who don't believe how messed up bureaucracy and people are now. I fully predict that there is going to be some huge, ridiculous glitch that either threatens or negates all my efforts on this.
They said "excessive for the kind of research I had envisioned (one guy working alone on his laptop, maybe from home)."
From what I read in several threads: They are currently trying to organize group development of a new spatial reasoning model for AI, would rather not have to get overly into neurological details as in the Grid Network topic, and are most enjoying seeing what happens where they try to fund something like that.
At least they're trying to get something funded, while at the same getting the word out that we're around.
Categories: AE Public BB
The Bathroom Wall
Post by Amadan
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 20 2014,20:23)Fred Phelps is gone. Did he find redemption?
"Gays? Are you f*cking stupid, Fred? I said I hate cigarettes - y'know, fags. Bloody awful things.
Now piss off down to Lucifer. He's got some rrreeeeeeeally special plans for the next eternity. Let's just say that all those years on your knees in church might turn out to be useful practice. B-byeee!"
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 20 2014,20:23)Fred Phelps is gone. Did he find redemption?
"Gays? Are you f*cking stupid, Fred? I said I hate cigarettes - y'know, fags. Bloody awful things.
Now piss off down to Lucifer. He's got some rrreeeeeeeally special plans for the next eternity. Let's just say that all those years on your knees in church might turn out to be useful practice. B-byeee!"
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 20 2014,14:22) Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Mar. 20 2014,08:58)If cognitive science were appropriate for public school curricula your real-science still wouldn't get its smelly little foot in the door.
What ends up with "its smelly little foot in the door" is what really works like the real-thing (as opposed to what really does not) that students bring to class for a science project.
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Mar. 20 2014,08:58)You keep avoiding the question: There are researchers getting funding for work in cognitive science, and in general they produce useful results-
Only around 1% of what is published is actually "useful" to me. Much of it is just good use of media for another neural network model that's much like all the rest. I still enjoy reading some of the student papers on models they build, but unless you know what all models are missing it can seem like progress is being made even though it would only either get fried by an invisible moving shock zone or stay in the center where it's always safe (but no treats).
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Mar. 20 2014,08:58)-results that you continually cite as significant to your "work." If your own little bag of turds is as significant as you think it is, why no support? Why hasn't a researcher who can get funding taken it up and pursued it? Where are your supporters?
What are you calling "supporters"? Funding sources throwing money to non-corporate entities? Academic representatives who only speak for the anti-ID movement all blogging about why the new intelligence model is of interest from an AI perspective? Or are you talking about this sort of networking where I mentioned PSC as a possible partner in an online project to further advance the state of the art in spacial navigation models?
http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....-622290
In my situation the problem is most with ones claiming to be heroic academic protectors of science who are still purposely helping to destroy it by making it seem like all that is happening is best brushed-off and ignored.
You seem to have found a few more delusional code monkeys to share your castle in the sky. At the Kurzweil link you provided, we see that CNOT wants to get in on some grant money being floated by the Paul Allen Foundation for AI research. He wants sponsorship from an academic institution, but he doesn't want to collaborate with anyone:
Quote The budget is supposed to be 3 pages long, which seems excessive for the kind of research I had envisioned (one guy working alone on his laptop, maybe from home).
The way the real world of people and business work nowadays (i.e., with extreme ineptitude, inefficiency, unethical behavior, and illegal behavior), I am leery of any kind of collaborative work anymore. *Always* there are glitches, usually major, show-stopper glitches, usually in such profusion that it becomes ridiculous. I'm going to start counting and documenting these glitches here as they occur, partly out of sordid humor, and partly for those who don't believe how messed up bureaucracy and people are now. I fully predict that there is going to be some huge, ridiculous glitch that either threatens or negates all my efforts on this.
He's already lining up his excuses for his inevitable failure.
You fit right in.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 20 2014,14:22) Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Mar. 20 2014,08:58)If cognitive science were appropriate for public school curricula your real-science still wouldn't get its smelly little foot in the door.
What ends up with "its smelly little foot in the door" is what really works like the real-thing (as opposed to what really does not) that students bring to class for a science project.
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Mar. 20 2014,08:58)You keep avoiding the question: There are researchers getting funding for work in cognitive science, and in general they produce useful results-
Only around 1% of what is published is actually "useful" to me. Much of it is just good use of media for another neural network model that's much like all the rest. I still enjoy reading some of the student papers on models they build, but unless you know what all models are missing it can seem like progress is being made even though it would only either get fried by an invisible moving shock zone or stay in the center where it's always safe (but no treats).
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Mar. 20 2014,08:58)-results that you continually cite as significant to your "work." If your own little bag of turds is as significant as you think it is, why no support? Why hasn't a researcher who can get funding taken it up and pursued it? Where are your supporters?
What are you calling "supporters"? Funding sources throwing money to non-corporate entities? Academic representatives who only speak for the anti-ID movement all blogging about why the new intelligence model is of interest from an AI perspective? Or are you talking about this sort of networking where I mentioned PSC as a possible partner in an online project to further advance the state of the art in spacial navigation models?
http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....-622290
In my situation the problem is most with ones claiming to be heroic academic protectors of science who are still purposely helping to destroy it by making it seem like all that is happening is best brushed-off and ignored.
You seem to have found a few more delusional code monkeys to share your castle in the sky. At the Kurzweil link you provided, we see that CNOT wants to get in on some grant money being floated by the Paul Allen Foundation for AI research. He wants sponsorship from an academic institution, but he doesn't want to collaborate with anyone:
Quote The budget is supposed to be 3 pages long, which seems excessive for the kind of research I had envisioned (one guy working alone on his laptop, maybe from home).
The way the real world of people and business work nowadays (i.e., with extreme ineptitude, inefficiency, unethical behavior, and illegal behavior), I am leery of any kind of collaborative work anymore. *Always* there are glitches, usually major, show-stopper glitches, usually in such profusion that it becomes ridiculous. I'm going to start counting and documenting these glitches here as they occur, partly out of sordid humor, and partly for those who don't believe how messed up bureaucracy and people are now. I fully predict that there is going to be some huge, ridiculous glitch that either threatens or negates all my efforts on this.
He's already lining up his excuses for his inevitable failure.
You fit right in.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (damitall @ Mar. 20 2014,14:35)I see you've found a fellow fantasist/whinger at kurzweilai.net in CNOT.
You sure read a lot into a forum that's popular for its AI related news and discussions, provided by (from what I read) the head of Google home-robot engineering. Their way of thinking big (as opposed to thinking small) does not bother me.
Quote (damitall @ Mar. 20 2014,14:35)I see you've found a fellow fantasist/whinger at kurzweilai.net in CNOT.
You sure read a lot into a forum that's popular for its AI related news and discussions, provided by (from what I read) the head of Google home-robot engineering. Their way of thinking big (as opposed to thinking small) does not bother me.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by NoName
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 20 2014,15:22)...
In my situation the problem is most with ones claiming to be heroic academic protectors of science who are still purposely helping to destroy it by making it seem like all that is happening is best brushed-off and ignored.
No one here, at least, is claiming to be "heroic academic protectors of science". That would be bombastic and more in your style. At the least, no one rightfully claims heroism for themselves.
The real tragedy isn't even that you are required to elevate your enemies to make your insignificance less apparent -- after all, it's important people who are keeping me down/suppressing my work.
No, the real tragedy is that no one needs to direct others to brush aside your "theory" and/or ignore it. Everyone sees quite clearly on first exposure that that is the only possible response. The response is only reinforced when your career of distraction, deflection and avoidance when questioned about said "theory" are noticed, as they will be by anyone who follows up for LULz of seeing if you could possibly be serious.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 20 2014,15:22)...
In my situation the problem is most with ones claiming to be heroic academic protectors of science who are still purposely helping to destroy it by making it seem like all that is happening is best brushed-off and ignored.
No one here, at least, is claiming to be "heroic academic protectors of science". That would be bombastic and more in your style. At the least, no one rightfully claims heroism for themselves.
The real tragedy isn't even that you are required to elevate your enemies to make your insignificance less apparent -- after all, it's important people who are keeping me down/suppressing my work.
No, the real tragedy is that no one needs to direct others to brush aside your "theory" and/or ignore it. Everyone sees quite clearly on first exposure that that is the only possible response. The response is only reinforced when your career of distraction, deflection and avoidance when questioned about said "theory" are noticed, as they will be by anyone who follows up for LULz of seeing if you could possibly be serious.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by damitall
I see you've found a fellow fantasist/whinger at kurzweilai.net in CNOT.
I see you've found a fellow fantasist/whinger at kurzweilai.net in CNOT.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Richardthughes
Quote Or are you talking about this sort of networking where I mentioned PSC as a possible partner in an online project to further advance the state of the art in spacial navigation models?
So fucking delusional.
Quote Or are you talking about this sort of networking where I mentioned PSC as a possible partner in an online project to further advance the state of the art in spacial navigation models?
So fucking delusional.
Categories: AE Public BB
Young Cosmos
Post by Richardthughes
.. and creation evolution university is already dying.
.. and creation evolution university is already dying.
Categories: AE Public BB
The Bathroom Wall
Post by Schroedinger's Dog
Fred Phelps is gone. Did he find redemption?
Fred Phelps is gone. Did he find redemption?
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by NoName
Worse, it is recognized as not science.
Worse, it is recognized as not science.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by didymos
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 16 2014,04:11)I'm already well enough recognized for my science work...
Gary, not only are you not recognized for your "science work", your work is not recognized as science.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 16 2014,04:11)I'm already well enough recognized for my science work...
Gary, not only are you not recognized for your "science work", your work is not recognized as science.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by NoName
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 16 2014,07:11)...
I'm already well enough recognized for my science work, …
Are you sure? Laughing and pointing is hardly what the sane amongst us would count as 'well enough recognized'.
Odd that you remain unable to identify a single scientist who takes your work even remotely seriously.
Or is the 'positive recognition' the absurd coding award from 5 voters?
Quote ...
I do not want to dwell on your need to get the philosophical results you wanted using a “natural selection” variable that eliminates all the intelligence required to create real living things from your models. It's no surprise your algorithms only go where the “Natural Selection” variable is set to go, instead of controlled by a trinity of intelligence levels going where they together want to go, and can learn to stay warm using camp-fire then later invent electric space heaters and other climate control systems for even in outer space. The eldest intelligence level is said to be at least trillions of years old. ...
Theologically speaking I'm not saying anything new. It's more like science finally figures out what religion has right along believed was somehow true. For you though it's a major paradigm shift, you'll just have to get used to...
More absurd swill from the world's foremost effluent generator.
No one in their right mind codes a 'natural selection' variable in a simulation. NS is a process, not a state.
That you persist in this elementary error is more than sufficient evidence that you simply do not understand evolutionary theory in the slightest.
As to a 'trinity of intelligence levels', well, that asserts facts not in evidence as we continue to point out.
You are unable to say what intelligence is -- you lack an operational definition at each of your three 'levels'.
You contradict yourself on the reality of the alleged 'bottom' level of 'molecular intelligence'.
You are unable to show reciprocal causation between any of the levels; that you continue to assert it does not in any way count as showing it.
Who says that anything is 'at least trillions of years old'? That's worse than absurd, given that the universe is not even a tenth of a trillion years old. Your physics and astronomy are seen to be as bad, as ill-informed and confused, as your biology.
As to your claim "Theologically speaking I'm not saying anything new", well, you would have been correct if you had stopped one word short of where you did. Congratulations on composing a sentence that is concise and direct, but as far as content goes, it is as mad as everything else you post.
You haven't shifted anyone's paradigm, you haven't presented a new paradigm, you haven't shown how your "paradigm" has greater explanatory power, coherence, and cohesion than the existing models, nor have you shown a single flaw in the existing models -- physics, chemistry, and biology are all entirely untouched by your effluent.
So there really isn't anything we have to 'get used to'.
You, however, need to get used to being a crank -- and get used to be seen as a crank for that seems to be the outcome of the entirety of your careening progress across the net.
You're a loon, Gary.
A loser, a poseur, a deluded crank who has thrown away his life on a quest that doesn't even rise to the level of the quixotic. You have managed to find a level of meaninglessness lower than the dadaists.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 16 2014,07:11)...
I'm already well enough recognized for my science work, …
Are you sure? Laughing and pointing is hardly what the sane amongst us would count as 'well enough recognized'.
Odd that you remain unable to identify a single scientist who takes your work even remotely seriously.
Or is the 'positive recognition' the absurd coding award from 5 voters?
Quote ...
I do not want to dwell on your need to get the philosophical results you wanted using a “natural selection” variable that eliminates all the intelligence required to create real living things from your models. It's no surprise your algorithms only go where the “Natural Selection” variable is set to go, instead of controlled by a trinity of intelligence levels going where they together want to go, and can learn to stay warm using camp-fire then later invent electric space heaters and other climate control systems for even in outer space. The eldest intelligence level is said to be at least trillions of years old. ...
Theologically speaking I'm not saying anything new. It's more like science finally figures out what religion has right along believed was somehow true. For you though it's a major paradigm shift, you'll just have to get used to...
More absurd swill from the world's foremost effluent generator.
No one in their right mind codes a 'natural selection' variable in a simulation. NS is a process, not a state.
That you persist in this elementary error is more than sufficient evidence that you simply do not understand evolutionary theory in the slightest.
As to a 'trinity of intelligence levels', well, that asserts facts not in evidence as we continue to point out.
You are unable to say what intelligence is -- you lack an operational definition at each of your three 'levels'.
You contradict yourself on the reality of the alleged 'bottom' level of 'molecular intelligence'.
You are unable to show reciprocal causation between any of the levels; that you continue to assert it does not in any way count as showing it.
Who says that anything is 'at least trillions of years old'? That's worse than absurd, given that the universe is not even a tenth of a trillion years old. Your physics and astronomy are seen to be as bad, as ill-informed and confused, as your biology.
As to your claim "Theologically speaking I'm not saying anything new", well, you would have been correct if you had stopped one word short of where you did. Congratulations on composing a sentence that is concise and direct, but as far as content goes, it is as mad as everything else you post.
You haven't shifted anyone's paradigm, you haven't presented a new paradigm, you haven't shown how your "paradigm" has greater explanatory power, coherence, and cohesion than the existing models, nor have you shown a single flaw in the existing models -- physics, chemistry, and biology are all entirely untouched by your effluent.
So there really isn't anything we have to 'get used to'.
You, however, need to get used to being a crank -- and get used to be seen as a crank for that seems to be the outcome of the entirety of your careening progress across the net.
You're a loon, Gary.
A loser, a poseur, a deluded crank who has thrown away his life on a quest that doesn't even rise to the level of the quixotic. You have managed to find a level of meaninglessness lower than the dadaists.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by NoName
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 16 2014,01:57) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 15 2014,11:04)Still though, it has been a great way to connect with AI and cognitive experts, who are working on the same core scientific problems.
Weaponizing boredom?
POTW
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 16 2014,01:57) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 15 2014,11:04)Still though, it has been a great way to connect with AI and cognitive experts, who are working on the same core scientific problems.
Weaponizing boredom?
POTW
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 15 2014,07:54)Gary finds a buddy:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....-619870
Gary, if you could keep your description to something along the lines of that hippocampus paragraph you just posted (only rewritten in halfway decent English) and restrain yourself from mentioning any of the unsupported and unsupportable crap that marks you as a loon (claiming that your model has anything to do with the origins of intelligence, reference to fractals without supporting equations, showing your feedback levels diagram, defining humans in a way that includes silky marmosets, and generally talking about ID theory, molecular intelligence, supposed problems with natural selection, salmon defending their young, and so on and so forth), then you might stand a reasonable chance of bamboozling a few harried reviewers and double-talking your way through to an Allen grant on the premise of modelling brain architecture requirements necessary to perform primitive behaviors such as simple foraging. However, given your nature, you will be able to do that only after the pope gets married amidst a swarm of flying pigs in a frozen-over Hell and fisherman and politicians stop lying.
I was going to propose a contest along the lines of "Gary's genius will be recognized when ..........", because the world needs some fresh metaphors for impossibility. However, that may be a backward approach, because for anyone who knows about Gary the ultimate adynaton might be "When the world recognizes Gaulin's genius".
I'm already well enough recognized for my science work, thank you, and I do not want to go in circles with your dizzying semantics where a nest-full of developing young that salmon parents defend are not their young.
Also, the IDLab model is now demonstrating “place avoidance” skills in an arena where neuroscientists can also watch AI's only “foraging” get sizzled trying to compete against a model that has temporal Grid Border and Place Cell internal world model in its confidence circuitry. The critter's origin is accounted for in the Theory of Intelligent Design (unnecessary Cambrian Explosion detail that became problematic was made gone by being precise by using theory specific phrase for that developmental level) gets into biological detail not yet technologically possible to model, where scientists understand why that is not include in this one that only has to get that part of the multicellular intelligence level right. It's a new benchmark, for AI, that's like from hell for models you would believe are intelligent just to use them as evidence to support your oversimplified world view, I love to complicate.
I do not want to dwell on your need to get the philosophical results you wanted using a “natural selection” variable that eliminates all the intelligence required to create real living things from your models. It's no surprise your algorithms only go where the “Natural Selection” variable is set to go, instead of controlled by a trinity of intelligence levels going where they together want to go, and can learn to stay warm using camp-fire then later invent electric space heaters and other climate control systems for even in outer space. The eldest intelligence level is said to be at least trillions of years old. Phylogenetics related sciences are now trying to read their mind to find out what they recall having happened, since having been created by more algorithmically precise “all knowing” forces that do not have to be intelligent to exist as matter producing consciousness.
Theologically speaking I'm not saying anything new. It's more like science finally figures out what religion has right along believed was somehow true. For you though it's a major paradigm shift, you'll just have to get used to...
Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 15 2014,07:54)Gary finds a buddy:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....-619870
Gary, if you could keep your description to something along the lines of that hippocampus paragraph you just posted (only rewritten in halfway decent English) and restrain yourself from mentioning any of the unsupported and unsupportable crap that marks you as a loon (claiming that your model has anything to do with the origins of intelligence, reference to fractals without supporting equations, showing your feedback levels diagram, defining humans in a way that includes silky marmosets, and generally talking about ID theory, molecular intelligence, supposed problems with natural selection, salmon defending their young, and so on and so forth), then you might stand a reasonable chance of bamboozling a few harried reviewers and double-talking your way through to an Allen grant on the premise of modelling brain architecture requirements necessary to perform primitive behaviors such as simple foraging. However, given your nature, you will be able to do that only after the pope gets married amidst a swarm of flying pigs in a frozen-over Hell and fisherman and politicians stop lying.
I was going to propose a contest along the lines of "Gary's genius will be recognized when ..........", because the world needs some fresh metaphors for impossibility. However, that may be a backward approach, because for anyone who knows about Gary the ultimate adynaton might be "When the world recognizes Gaulin's genius".
I'm already well enough recognized for my science work, thank you, and I do not want to go in circles with your dizzying semantics where a nest-full of developing young that salmon parents defend are not their young.
Also, the IDLab model is now demonstrating “place avoidance” skills in an arena where neuroscientists can also watch AI's only “foraging” get sizzled trying to compete against a model that has temporal Grid Border and Place Cell internal world model in its confidence circuitry. The critter's origin is accounted for in the Theory of Intelligent Design (unnecessary Cambrian Explosion detail that became problematic was made gone by being precise by using theory specific phrase for that developmental level) gets into biological detail not yet technologically possible to model, where scientists understand why that is not include in this one that only has to get that part of the multicellular intelligence level right. It's a new benchmark, for AI, that's like from hell for models you would believe are intelligent just to use them as evidence to support your oversimplified world view, I love to complicate.
I do not want to dwell on your need to get the philosophical results you wanted using a “natural selection” variable that eliminates all the intelligence required to create real living things from your models. It's no surprise your algorithms only go where the “Natural Selection” variable is set to go, instead of controlled by a trinity of intelligence levels going where they together want to go, and can learn to stay warm using camp-fire then later invent electric space heaters and other climate control systems for even in outer space. The eldest intelligence level is said to be at least trillions of years old. Phylogenetics related sciences are now trying to read their mind to find out what they recall having happened, since having been created by more algorithmically precise “all knowing” forces that do not have to be intelligent to exist as matter producing consciousness.
Theologically speaking I'm not saying anything new. It's more like science finally figures out what religion has right along believed was somehow true. For you though it's a major paradigm shift, you'll just have to get used to...
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by didymos
Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 16 2014,03:19) Quote (socle @ Mar. 16 2014,02:33)The NY Times has published a link to what appears to be the youtube account of the MH370 pilot, Zaharie Ahmad Shah. Zaharie's subscriptions include the channels of the Richard Dawkins Foundation and Tim Minchin and he has liked other atheism-related content.
Will Barry Arrington and KF be able to restrain themselves from speculating on the matter until the facts are known?
What are you talking about?
The pilot of the missing flight was apparently a godless materialist. Barry loves to blame any tragedy he can on such people. Thus the question: will he go there this time?
Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 16 2014,03:19) Quote (socle @ Mar. 16 2014,02:33)The NY Times has published a link to what appears to be the youtube account of the MH370 pilot, Zaharie Ahmad Shah. Zaharie's subscriptions include the channels of the Richard Dawkins Foundation and Tim Minchin and he has liked other atheism-related content.
Will Barry Arrington and KF be able to restrain themselves from speculating on the matter until the facts are known?
What are you talking about?
The pilot of the missing flight was apparently a godless materialist. Barry loves to blame any tragedy he can on such people. Thus the question: will he go there this time?
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by DiEb
Quote (Learned Hand @ Mar. 15 2014,08:16)What a coincidence, I stopped by to mention that I just got back from the first day of the REASONS conference. I heard Dembski and Meyer speak, and spoke a bit to Dembski afterwards. I probably won't have time to write it up for a couple of days, but it was interesting.
I'd love to read your essay. When and where will you publish it?
Quote (Learned Hand @ Mar. 15 2014,08:16)What a coincidence, I stopped by to mention that I just got back from the first day of the REASONS conference. I heard Dembski and Meyer speak, and spoke a bit to Dembski afterwards. I probably won't have time to write it up for a couple of days, but it was interesting.
I'd love to read your essay. When and where will you publish it?
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by DiEb
Quote (socle @ Mar. 16 2014,02:33)The NY Times has published a link to what appears to be the youtube account of the MH370 pilot, Zaharie Ahmad Shah. Zaharie's subscriptions include the channels of the Richard Dawkins Foundation and Tim Minchin and he has liked other atheism-related content.
Will Barry Arrington and KF be able to restrain themselves from speculating on the matter until the facts are known?
What are you talking about?
Quote (socle @ Mar. 16 2014,02:33)The NY Times has published a link to what appears to be the youtube account of the MH370 pilot, Zaharie Ahmad Shah. Zaharie's subscriptions include the channels of the Richard Dawkins Foundation and Tim Minchin and he has liked other atheism-related content.
Will Barry Arrington and KF be able to restrain themselves from speculating on the matter until the facts are known?
What are you talking about?
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by Driver
Quote (khan @ Mar. 16 2014,00:31)TC; DR
Too crazy...
What do you mean?
Quote As I will explain in a future article, the false Jews, or the "synagogue of Satan", represent the church of Laodicea, which I interpret to symbolize the cerebellum, a supervised sensorimotor mechanism used for routine or automated tasks. The cerebellum receives sensory signals only from rich sensors.
Quote (khan @ Mar. 16 2014,00:31)TC; DR
Too crazy...
What do you mean?
Quote As I will explain in a future article, the false Jews, or the "synagogue of Satan", represent the church of Laodicea, which I interpret to symbolize the cerebellum, a supervised sensorimotor mechanism used for routine or automated tasks. The cerebellum receives sensory signals only from rich sensors.
Categories: AE Public BB
