If you recall Paul saying whacky shit, you're not crazy.

pfrankinstein wrote:You think I just post for you such is your ego.

I really don't, but I know the membership here, and none of the regulars require your lexical input. People here are used to finding out things that they don't know, rather than, as you do, just making shit up about them and declaring them to be true, and are accustomed to looking up unfamiliar words.

Love philosophy.

How would you know? Surely you'd have to have some idea of what philosophy is before you could love it, and you clearly don't. You fail at the most basic function of philosophy, namely 'how to identify presupposition failure'. Not only have you failed to identify your presuppositions, you've insisted on clinging to it after having been show just how catastrophically all your presuppositions have failed.

Greg the Grouper wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:In looking for the origin of a processshould I be looking for a more complex process.

What has complexity to do with finding an origin?

If you want to find the origin of selection, track back to abiogenesis and the evolution of the first replicators for which there could be applied the notion of a survival differential, and then stop, because that's the beginning of selection

I could be crazy, but I recall Paul making a comment about an understanding of the world that begins with the middle being incomplete; maybe he believes that discovering evolution first has somehow hindered our means of explaining the world by starting us off on the wrong foot?

No. Certainly not. The point I make is that If you discover the middle of a process first and then encapsulate it, and hold it so tight, you can not begin or conceive of anything else outside of that bubble.

Can there be an "exploded view" of your process of evolution?

Can a relatively young dog be taught new tricks.

Paul

https://youtu.be/tR7SdaXHPH4

pfrankinstein wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:In looking for the origin of a processshould I be looking for a more complex process.

What has complexity to do with finding an origin?

If you want to find the origin of selection, track back to abiogenesis and the evolution of the first replicators for which there could be applied the notion of a survival differential, and then stop, because that's the beginning of selection

I could be crazy, but I recall Paul making a comment about an understanding of the world that begins with the middle being incomplete; maybe he believes that discovering evolution first has somehow hindered our means of explaining the world by starting us off on the wrong foot?

No. Certainly not. The point I make is that If you discover the middle of a process first and then encapsulate it, and hold it so tight, you can not begin or conceive of anything else outside of that bubble.

Can there be an "exploded view" of your process of evolution?

Can a relatively young dog be taught new tricks.

Paul

https://youtu.be/tR7SdaXHPH4

A town built upon a riverbend, contingent on the river for its survival, is nonetheless capable of exploring up and down the river.

Your contention is asinine.

hackenslash wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:You think I just post for you such is your ego.

I really don't, but I know the membership here, and none of the regulars require your lexical input. People here are used to finding out things that they don't know, rather than, as you do, just making shit up about them and declaring them to be true, and are accustomed to looking up unfamiliar words.

Love philosophy.

How would you know? Surely you'd have to have some idea of what philosophy is before you could love it, and you clearly don't. You fail at the most basic function of philosophy, namely 'how to identify presupposition failure'. Not only have you failed to identify your presuppositions, you've insisted on clinging to it after having been show just how catastrophically all your presuppositions have failed.

I understand that with great learning, most become likeable thoughtful and humble.

Others like your good self, oh and thrower; get off by rubbing their science muscle up against other people's legs.

Paul.

Making stuff up kids is sometimes referred to as "innovation."

https://youtu.be/xH-_9cwdLug

pfrankinstein wrote:I understand that with great learning, most become likeable thoughtful and humble.

That sounds like another conclusion you fished out of your rectal sphincter. In my experience of people with great learning, they tend to give nonsensical bollocks that undermines the products of their efforts short shrift, along with the muppets who promulgate it. They also tend to value education, and invest greatly in bootstrapping our species to better things by application of the fruits of their labours, and look witheringly on random fuckwits with ex recto notions about how reality works and their deleterious effect on the species, currently manifest in the most obvious way in my lifetime in the form of anencephalic addlepates rejecting and enjoining others to reject the fruits of said labour and racking up a kill-count that outstrips a minor dictatorship.

People are dying because of this shit, in exactly the way I and other people hereabouts have been warning of for decades.

So no, I don't give a flying fuck if you like me, or find me humble. As for thoughtful, there are several ways to parse that term. Sorry if I don't satisfy your need on one of those ways, but I do very little other than think, which is more than can reasonably be said for internet trolls and their pet pseudoscientific model of reality.

Others like your good self, oh and thrower; get off by rubbing their science muscle up against other people's legs.

Go on, tell me about my tone again. I don't fucking care. Your mindset is killing people.

If you were remotely interested in how this shit works, you'd put the effort in to learn, not least because you have a treasure-trove of keywords, topics, explanations and oodles of people with genuine knowledge and understanding who are more than willing to impart that understanding on you, right here in the testament to fuckwittery that is this thread. You're not interested in how the universe works, you're stroking your ego.

At least I'm open about mine.

pfrankinstein wrote:Making stuff up kids is sometimes referred to as "innovation."

But more often as 'fiction', 'fantasy', 'Walter Mitty' and other indications of either dishonesty or stupidity.

hackenslash wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Making stuff up kids is sometimes referred to as "innovation."

But more often as 'fiction', 'fantasy', 'Walter Mitty' and other indications of either dishonesty or stupidity.

Method : to measure evolution by its broad key characteristics.

Reduce sample to a manageable size.

The processof evolution

Measure the process by itself.

Back and forth to and fro....

A quiet understanding as I see it.

Testing my three tonight, how about you?

All quiet on the western front.


https://youtu.be/Jwtyn-L-2gQ

Paul.

hackenslash wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Making stuff up kids is sometimes referred to as "innovation."

But more often as 'fiction', 'fantasy', 'Walter Mitty' and other indications of either dishonesty or stupidity.

Shall we cut to the crux.

The exploded view offers some possibility of direction in the single process.

It's only a possibility.

Dawkins and his fans won't like it.

Eh flamethrower?

Lame science shouts the crowd.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:if you discover the middle of a process first

Well that's a conundrum, innit? Can we do anything but discover the middle of a process first, Paul, unless we start with a recipe for disaster? It's not as if we can buy tickets to opening night at the theatre. Oh, brilliant, Paul. Go ahead, keep polishing your god complex. It's cheap fucking entertainment, unlike tickets to opening night.

pfrankinstein wrote:
The exploded view offers some possibility of direction in the single process.

You can't explode the view from the middle of the process. You'll lose the ends. You have to explode the view as you go, taking care with each defecation, er, detonation.

pfrankinstein wrote:
Reduce sample to a manageable size.

That's going to require selective attention, Paul. Ready whenever you are.

pfrankinstein wrote:...

Method : to measure evolution by its broad key characteristics.

Result: 1.74m, 750 Newtons, 2019686400 seconds, 0 net Coulomb charge (uncombed), ~100 (350 max.) Watts of power

Reduce sample to a manageable size.

Decimation complete.

The processof evolution

Very bold.

Measure the process by itself.

With what?

Back and forth to and fro....

Is it?

A quiet understanding as I see it.

See what?

Testing my three tonight, how about you?

No.

All quiet on the western front.

A book recommendation?

Are we nearly there, yet?

The most innocent question 'where did that come from'.

Where did the process of Darwinian evolution come from.

So I pushed the tree backward and forward.

In doing so I noticed movement.

Past Present Future.

That would be the red blue and yellow of things.

What do I know. I know nowt.

Paul

https://youtu.be/t2c-X8HiBng

pfrankinstein wrote:The most innocent question 'where did that come from'.

It's a silly question. See if you can find a better one.

"Where did the process of Darwinian evolution come from"

Big Question.

Here's a bigger question:
"Where do algorithms come from"

Paul, it's frankly embarrassing watching you pretend to be a genius while you can barely type a coherent sentence.

If you're unaware how scattered your thoughts are, how incoherent your presentation is, then perhaps this explains why you think you've got a good idea when all it really amounts to is a capitulation of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

It doesn't even have the benefit of all the other hocs, such as the ad hoc rationalisation to a valid objection, which is why it doesn't even qualify as pseudoscience.

ETA: I suppose he does have cum hoc, since he's been fapping for a decade and we've been hocking.

Spearthrower wrote:Paul, it's frankly embarrassing watching you pretend to be a genius while you can barely type a coherent sentence.

If you're unaware how scattered your thoughts are, how incoherent your presentation is, then perhaps this explains why you think you've got a good idea when all it really amounts to is a capitulation of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

You rubbing your silver tongued genitals up against my leg again.

You have lied bullied and tried to manipulate the powers that be.

You failed.


Who are you?

Silver tongued genitals...?