ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:For those who are just now tuning in, user
(2) Crude <some item> typically refers to something that is not actually that item.

No it doesn't, it refers to the actual item in an unrefined state. Get thee to a dictionary!

Crude may mean rough, which may mean approximate.

Google helps.

Except that a crude chair, is still a chair.
A simulated universe is not a crude universe.

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
It's still not a crude universe. It's a crude simulation.

Why do beings fail to quickly use google?

Crude may mean approximation, which may be a reference to something.

Google helps.

I thought you had stopped responding to me?

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

And so, after billions of years of evolution, it turned out that my brain managed to invent non-beliefism.

So you claim to have been alive for billions of years and to have personally experienced evolution.
You really should cut down on the ganja for a while.

Manticore wrote:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

And so, after billions of years of evolution, it turned out that my brain managed to invent non-beliefism.

So you claim to have been alive for billions of years and to have personally experienced evolution.
You really should cut down on the ganja for a while.

I had anticipated such a mangled response, and I pondered whether someone would follow through.

Anyway, where did I mention that I was alive for billions of years?

Are you not aware the evolution took place over billions of years?

What evidence do you have that indicates that a human can live for billions of years?

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

Manticore wrote:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

And so, after billions of years of evolution, it turned out that my brain managed to invent non-beliefism.

So you claim to have been alive for billions of years and to have personally experienced evolution.
You really should cut down on the ganja for a while.

I had anticipated such a mangled response, and I pondered whether someone would follow through.

There's nothing mangled about that response Jordan.
Transparent attempts like this, to dismiss other posters out of hand won't work.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:For those who are just now tuning in, user
(2) Crude <some item> typically refers to something that is not actually that item.

No it doesn't, it refers to the actual item in an unrefined state. Get thee to a dictionary!

Crude may mean rough, which may mean approximate.

Google helps.

Except that a crude chair, is still a chair.
A simulated universe is not a crude universe.

Please check dictionary links above. Don't be a "sheeple"/troll.
A crude thing, may be an APPROXIMATION of that thing.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

Manticore wrote:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

And so, after billions of years of evolution, it turned out that my brain managed to invent non-beliefism.

So you claim to have been alive for billions of years and to have personally experienced evolution.
You really should cut down on the ganja for a while.

I had anticipated such a mangled response, and I pondered whether someone would follow through.

There's nothing mangled about that response Jordan.
Transparent attempts like this, to dismiss other posters out of hand won't work.

What is your area of research?

If you have not yet done any programming/machine learning, you could perhaps expand your horizon, maybe create intriguing future instances of your self...

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

Manticore wrote:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

And so, after billions of years of evolution, it turned out that my brain managed to invent non-beliefism.

So you claim to have been alive for billions of years and to have personally experienced evolution.
You really should cut down on the ganja for a while.

I had anticipated such a mangled response, and I pondered whether someone would follow through.

Anyway, where did I mention that I was alive for billions of years?

Are you not aware the evolution took place over billions of years?

What evidence do you have that indicates that a human can live for billions of years?

You very plainly state that your brain evolved for billions of years. I naturally assumed that the remainder of you would have to have existed as a support system for the same period of time.

Manticore wrote:

You very plainly state that your brain evolved for billions of years. I naturally assumed that the remainder of you would have to have existed as a support system for the same period of time.

Let me elabourate:

After billions of years of evolution, many organisms evolved, until humans emerged. After some time, I was born in 1991. It turned out that my brain managed to invent non-beliefism.

The new portion in purple should "spell things out", toddler style.
PS: Oddly, my 9 year old niece did not need the portion in purple, to absorb/express the meaning of the initial sentence.

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
No it doesn't, it refers to the actual item in an unrefined state. Get thee to a dictionary!

Crude may mean rough, which may mean approximate.

Google helps.

Except that a crude chair, is still a chair.
A simulated universe is not a crude universe.

Please check dictionary links above. Don't be a "sheeple"/troll.
A crude thing, may be an APPROXIMATION of that thing.

Please raise the level of your trolling. It's really subpar and boring.

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:Belief is a quantity that may belie stupidity.

Mmhmm.

OlivierK wrote:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:Belief is a quantity that may belie stupidity.

Mmhmm.

You believe belief is a quantity?

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
No it doesn't, it refers to the actual item in an unrefined state. Get thee to a dictionary!

Crude may mean rough, which may mean approximate.

Google helps.

Except that a crude chair, is still a chair.
A simulated universe is not a crude universe.

Please check dictionary links above. Don't be a "sheeple"/troll.
A crude thing, may be an APPROXIMATION of that thing.

So, you were lying when you said you weren't going to respond to me anymore?

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

Manticore wrote:

So you claim to have been alive for billions of years and to have personally experienced evolution.
You really should cut down on the ganja for a while.

I had anticipated such a mangled response, and I pondered whether someone would follow through.

There's nothing mangled about that response Jordan.
Transparent attempts like this, to dismiss other posters out of hand won't work.

What is your area of research?

If you have not yet done any programming/machine learning, you could perhaps expand your horizon, maybe create intriguing future instances of your self...

I said raise, not lower the level of your trolling.

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

Manticore wrote:

You very plainly state that your brain evolved for billions of years. I naturally assumed that the remainder of you would have to have existed as a support system for the same period of time.

Let me elabourate:

After billions of years of evolution, many organisms evolved, until humans emerged. After some time, I was born in 1991. It turned out that my brain managed to invent non-beliefism.

The new portion in purple should "spell things out", toddler style.
PS: Oddly, my 9 year old niece did not need the portion in purple, to absorb/express the meaning of the initial sentence.

So? Now you successfully demonstrate that you have no sense of humour. Am I supposed to be impressed.

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
After billions of years of evolution, many organisms evolved, until humans emerged. After some time, I was born in 1991. It turned out that my brain managed make grandiose claims that it had to invented non-beliefism.

F.I.F.Y

Just so there is clarity about what it is you've actually done here. I'm afraid having delusions of grandeur is something human brains evolved the ability to do a great many years ago.

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
What is your area of research?

If you have not yet done any programming/machine learning, you could perhaps expand your horizon

Jordan, there are scores of free MOOCs that hype their relevance to the already-over-hyped magnet of 'machine learning'. Anyone with a smattering of calculus and college-freshman-level linear algebra can soak up as much jargon as you have, and as little real expertise in ANYTHING significant, which is as much as you've actually demonstrated. I don't necessarily assume you're ignorant of the details underpinning fields like discrete optimization, linear programming, regression analysis and lots of other shit you can look up for yourself as being related to the buzzword 'machine learning', but you haven't mentioned it. The reason you're poking around a generalist forum like this one is that you hope nobody's actually going to ask you to demonstrate some expertise at a slightly less hazy level just, you know, to give the slightest hint that you're not SIMPLY bullshitting and trolling as everyone else assumes in the trainwreck threads you've started.

As for your github stuff, in java? Who wants to try to figure out whether or not you developed the code you posted? Nothing you've said here suggests that you did anything but clone somebody else's repo. Yeah, you know enough java to make it go. That's as much as you've demonstrated. You've got your hands on some steepest-descent code that does handwriting recognition. Your stuff isn't vetted, you have no affiliation, but you talk big. Whoop dee doo.

As for 'non-beliefism'? Keep drawing those pretty pictures that look like what a toddler fingerpaints on his bedroom walls. Otherwise, get busy and typeset some mathematics and upload a PDF so someone can evaluate your 'proof'.

The trolling's becoming scattershot now, isn't it?

Take a break Jordan, you're really bad at this.

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

Fallible wrote:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:For those who are just now tuning in, user SafeAsMilk is unable to observe that:
(1) Illustris simulation is not nothing. (SafeAsMilk continues to express that what remains in the god redefinition, is nothing)
(2) Crude <some item> typically refers to something that is not actually that item.

EXAMPLE A:
In the github/imgur links below, I wrote a crude "simulation" of an os. By SafeAsMilk's logic, the code below does not exist:

https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/B ... -INTERFACE

EXAMPLE B:
In the github/imgur links below, I wrote a simple, very crude cycle of neuronal process for some classification task. By SafeAsMilk's logic, the code below does not exist:

https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/S ... -SENTIENCE

Nope, I refuse to believe that anybody could really be this stupid. It has to be an act.

Actually yes, the user behaved in that silly manner.
I ponder whether it is some form of trolling/acting.

Oh yes, me too.

SafeAsMilk wrote:The trolling's becoming scattershot now, isn't it?

Take a break Jordan, you're really bad at this.

I didn't detect any sensible/ empirically bound objection of yours.

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
As I said before, the whole point of the redefinition is to update the concept so that empirically observed properties somewhat remain.
Now, the only type of universes creatable by intelligence, is simulations.
Can you attempt to understand this simple factum?

Could you additionally describe how the above is supposedly invalid?