ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags general AI

Reply
Old 10th November 2017, 01:34 AM   #1
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,628
Cognitive Theory, ongoing progress

In the community thread no one seemed to be interested in discussion. So, I guess I'll just post the status. People also seemed very confused about what I was working on. So, maybe a little background.

Markram was involved with the Blue Brain Project back in 2005. He then gave a TED talk in 2009 where he described a large scale brain research project and stated that within 10 years, they could have a working brain simulation. Markram did generate interest and The Human Brain Project started in the EU in October 2013. One of the subprojects was:
  • SP3 Systems and Cognitive Neuroscience: Understanding how the brain performs its systems-level and cognitive functional activities

However, the governing committee voted to end work on SP3 in early 2014. This caused a revolt among hundreds of scientists who were involved. An open letter was submitted with signature between July and September 2014. The result was that the governing committee of three was disbanded in February 2015 and it was decided that the new committee of 22 would not contain any members who were in charge of projects within the HBP because of conflict of interest. The current HBP goals include:
  • Simulate the brain
  • Build multi-scale scaffold theory and models for the brain
  • Develop brain-inspired computing, data analytics and robotics
The HBP concept is based on the idea of somehow simulating the brain using neural networks. Then analyzing these neural networks to figure out what is happening and develop models or scaffolding. Then apply these models to computing.

My work started one month after the HBP in November 2013. I made a breakthrough in August 2015 and have made progress since then. My work involves analyzing behavior and cognitive ability in organisms and developing a model of evolutionary development based on knowledge theory. Recently, I was able to set a ceiling for the complexity of the remainder of the theory which involves consciousness. I know that what is left is no more than 20% of the total complexity.

It should be understood that the HBP method is bottom up. So, whatever progress is made is functional or operational. However, my method is top down so 80% complete is still non-functional. In other words, even though progress with HBP is at a snail's pace, it is verified since each piece is functional. My work can't be verified until the theory is complete since it isn't functional until it's complete. All I can say right now is that the theory is consistent with evidence. Consistent is not the same as confirmed.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 06:37 AM   #2
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,496
When you say "evolutionary development" do you mean how a species changes over successive generations, or how a single organism changes over its lifetime?

Also, what is the "knowledge theory" you are applying in your work? Is it part your work, or an independent body of work that informs your efforts? If independent, can you provide some citations or references?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 09:40 AM   #3
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,395
I'd like to read more. Got any cites?
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 08:18 PM   #4
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,628
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
When you say "evolutionary development" do you mean how a species changes over successive generations
The evolutionary record runs from round worm to fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammal-like reptiles to mammals to primates to monkeys to apes to great apes to humans. Somewhere along that path we went from non-intelligent to generally intelligent. My research involves the evolutionary steps in brain, intelligence, and cognitive development to get from round worms to humans.

This is an addition to evolutionary theory but involving cognitive development. This hasn't been researched much because the fossil record doesn't show cognition, only brain size and shape. And, even recent advances in genetic evolutionary theory aren't understood well enough to detail cognitive development.

Quote:
Also, what is the "knowledge theory" you are applying in your work? Is it part your work
When I made the first breakthrough over two years ago, it wasn't long before I realized that I had no foundational basis for the theory. You couldn't relate it to other theories or work out formal definitions or equations. So, I began looking in information & decision theory and philosophy. I realized that there was a big gap. I eventually developed knowledge theory.

With knowledge theory you can explain where abstractions come from and how they acquire value. You need it to explain things like the ability to understand. It's part of the basis for learning and overcoming the frame problem.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 08:26 PM   #5
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,628
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
I'd like to read more. Got any cites?
Are you talking about cites of the unpublished theory or cites of published research used to develop the theory?
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 09:38 PM   #6
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,395
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
Are you talking about cites of the unpublished theory or cites of published research used to develop the theory?
Well, proof that what seems to be your own personal idea has any legitimacy.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 10:23 PM   #7
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,628
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Well, proof that what seems to be your own personal idea has any legitimacy.
I mentioned this in the very first post. I'm not quite sure how you managed to miss it.

Originally Posted by barehl
All I can say right now is that the theory is consistent with evidence. Consistent is not the same as confirmed.
I assume that by legitimate you mean confirmed.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 12:03 AM   #8
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,496
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
I mentioned this in the very first post. I'm not quite sure how you managed to miss it.
To be honest the first post kind of rambles a bit. The first half isn't even about your work.

Quote:
I assume that by legitimate you mean confirmed.
I'd settle for "consistent with evidence". You would start by explaining your theory in enough detail to make predictions from it. And then point out which observed evidence is consistent with the predictions of your theory. Anyone can claim to have a new theory that matches observations and is 80% on its way to totality. If you don't show your work, what's the point?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 01:01 AM   #9
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,628
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The first half isn't even about your work.
Yes, that's probably why I said:
Originally Posted by barehl
So, maybe a little background.
I guess you missed that too.

Quote:
I'd settle for "consistent with evidence".
You mean you wouldn't settle for this. You'll now start explaining what you actually think you are somehow entitled to.

Quote:
You would start by explaining your theory in enough detail to make predictions from it.
Yes, I will when it is published. It won't be published until it is finished and there is a suitable environment. This would be 2021 at the earliest.

Quote:
And then point out which observed evidence is consistent with the predictions of your theory.
This doesn't make any sense. I can't very well point out what experimental evidence might be consistent before those experiments are performed.

Quote:
Anyone can claim to have a new theory that matches observations and is 80% on its way to totality.
Yes, I suppose that's true. If you believe that I just made up a claim then why did you start posting in this thread? And why don't you stop? Let me be more clear. I'm not going to play games with you. I got enough of that in the community thread.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 01:27 AM   #10
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,745
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
All I can say right now is that the theory is consistent with evidence.

What's the evidence, and how is your theory consistent with it?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 01:35 AM   #11
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,745
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
When I made the first breakthrough over two years ago, it wasn't long before I realized that I had no foundational basis for the theory. You couldn't relate it to other theories or work out formal definitions or equations. So, I began looking in information & decision theory and philosophy. I realized that there was a big gap. I eventually developed knowledge theory.

With knowledge theory you can explain where abstractions come from and how they acquire value. You need it to explain things like the ability to understand. It's part of the basis for learning and overcoming the frame problem.

Can you explain this knowledge theory, and how it enables you to do this?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 04:38 AM   #12
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,680
"I have an idea."
"What is your idea?"
"Fie on you, sir! I'll not play these games!"
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 05:08 AM   #13
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,635
Would simulating the human brain in order to perform experiments on it be ethical? I'm not sure I see the distinction between that and performing experiments on a non-simulated human brain.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 06:34 AM   #14
jrhowell
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 272
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
Yes, I will when it is published. It won't be published until it is finished and there is a suitable environment. This would be 2021 at the earliest.
All you are doing is attacking anyone who responds. If you won't discuss your theory then why start a thread about it now instead of waiting until it is ready in 2021?
jrhowell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 06:50 AM   #15
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,745
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
All you are doing is attacking anyone who responds. If you won't discuss your theory then why start a thread about it now instead of waiting until it is ready in 2021?

I'll be really disappointed if I wait four years only to be told that it is "consciousness is thin at one end, much, much thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the other end."
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 09:30 AM   #16
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,680
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
All you are doing is attacking anyone who responds. If you won't discuss your theory then why start a thread about it now instead of waiting until it is ready in 2021?
Because he's already started describing himself as an unappreciated genius for it. Specifically, comparing himself favorably to Elon Musk in the latest Mars thread. But you can't be a martyr until you get martyred, so this is his three days in the underworld.


Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Would simulating the human brain in order to perform experiments on it be ethical? I'm not sure I see the distinction between that and performing experiments on a non-simulated human brain.
I think performing those experiments will be required to determine their ethicality. Otherwise how could you argue that the brain you've simulated is accurate enough to deserve an ethical standing?

Last edited by Beelzebuddy; 12th November 2017 at 09:43 AM.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 09:43 AM   #17
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,427
So you created a thread in the community subforum complaining that everyone's overlooking how groundbreaking your new theory is going to be. When asked what your theory entails, you said you couldn't give any details until you had published it.

You abandoned that thread and started this one, where you announce that you are doing groundbreaking work that will revolutionize science.

And again, when people ask you to say something about your work, you not only decline, but you get salty.

Now, I'm no world class developer of my own knowledge theory and revolutionary model of consciousness, but if you don't really want to talk about your theory, then why start these threads? Attention? Looking for some persecution so you get to play Galileo? Attention?

Wish I knew.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 09:51 AM   #18
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,496
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
Yes, that's probably why I said:

I guess you missed that too.
Not at all. The "background" you gave was for some other work, being done by other people, attacking the problem from a different direction. It doesn't appear to have any connection to your work.

Quote:
You mean you wouldn't settle for this. You'll now start explaining what you actually think you are somehow entitled to.
You said, "All I can say right now is that the theory is consistent with evidence." I mean I will settle for exactly that: An explanation of how the theory is consistent with the evidence.

Quote:
Yes, I will when it is published. It won't be published until it is finished and there is a suitable environment. This would be 2021 at the earliest.
Then why bring it up now? Without the theory, and without the evidence, what do you imagine can be discussed here?

Quote:
This doesn't make any sense. I can't very well point out what experimental evidence might be consistent before those experiments are performed.
When you said that the theory is consistent with the evidene, I took this to mean there is already existing evidence to discuss--experiments or observations that have already taken place. Is that not true?

Quote:
Yes, I suppose that's true. If you believe that I just made up a claim then why did you start posting in this thread? And why don't you stop? Let me be more clear. I'm not going to play games with you. I got enough of that in the community thread.
I started posting in this thread to better understand your idea. Your style of presentation is problematic, but I think the problems can be easily resolved.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 09:54 AM   #19
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,628
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
All you are doing is attacking anyone who responds.
That isn't the case and you know it, or at least you should know it. If you were genuine in your response you could have asked me if the theory had any predictions where experiments have already been done.

Quote:
If you won't discuss your theory then why start a thread about it now instead of waiting until it is ready in 2021?
Okay, we're back to that again; it's a waste of time. Once the theory is published there won't be any discussion here. So, by saying that you want to wait until it is published you are actually saying that you don't want to ever discuss it. Why not be honest and just say that instead?
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 09:56 AM   #20
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,628
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
I'll be really disappointed if I wait four years only to be told that it is "consciousness is thin at one end, much, much thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the other end."
If had spent four years working on a theory like that I would be much more disappointed than you. In fact, I don't see how I could do that unless I was mentally unbalanced.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 10:03 AM   #21
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,916
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
Once the theory is published there won't be any discussion here.
Why on earth not?

New theories and discoveries are discussed here all the time.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 10:06 AM   #22
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,496
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
If you were genuine in your response you could have asked me if the theory had any predictions where experiments have already been done.
That's exactly what I asked. And you rejected it.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 10:07 AM   #23
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,395
I've got a cognitive theory of my own. It's that there is a simulation that posts on the net. Said sim is only about 80%, the lacking 20% gives it Asperger's. At 40% it had Autism.

There is a competition going on. Last Sim went by the name Prof. Sukor Lugar or some such. One made up name is as good as another to an Aspy.

I'm going to publish my theory some day. Maybe after I have brain surgery. Or minimum, shock treatments.

But I've said enough, you can go look up my theory on the net.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 10:09 AM   #24
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,916
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
If had spent four years working on a theory like that I would be much more disappointed than you. In fact, I don't see how I could do that unless I was mentally unbalanced.
It's a reference to a Monty Python sketch:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 11:43 AM   #25
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,628
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Because he's already started describing himself as an unappreciated genius for it.
I've been treated differently since I was six years old. I was treated differently all through grade school, high school, and even in college. I've gotten this from family, friends, co-workers, employers, acquaintances, and mental health professionals. This has gone on for a number of decades. So, how many possibilities are there?

1.) We have a case of mass delusion where people who come into contact with me mistakenly think I'm smart when I'm actually not. Since this involves people who have never met it would have to include some kind of telepathy.
2.) At the age of six I learned to fool people into thinking I was smart. And apparently got good enough at it to fool people who actually were smart and knowledgeable.
3.) The conclusions by others about me have been consistent because they were based on observations.

I'm not sure what you meant about appreciation. As far as I'm aware I haven't done anything to be appreciated for.

Quote:
Specifically, comparing himself favorably to Elon Musk in the latest Mars thread.
Okay, this claim made me laugh. Musk is an entrepreneur who has made millions. I'm not a millionaire nor even a businessman. I can assure you that I've never started an online business or started an electric car company or started a rocket company. The only real overlap I have with Musk is in disagreeing with his ideas about self-driving cars and his somewhat outlandish ideas about general machine intelligence. To put this simply, Musk doesn't know what he's talking about on these topics.

Quote:
But you can't be a martyr until you get martyred, so this is his three days in the underworld.
I seek to be a martyr? In what way? Also, wouldn't being a martyr be a lot easier than spending years doing research?

Quote:
I think performing those experiments will be required to determine their ethicality. Otherwise how could you argue that the brain you've simulated is accurate enough to deserve an ethical standing?
If someone manages to accurately simulate a brain then that would completely refute my theory. Cross your fingers.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 12:01 PM   #26
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,427
Originally Posted by barehl View Post

Okay, we're back to that again; it's a waste of time. Once the theory is published there won't be any discussion here. So, by saying that you want to wait until it is published you are actually saying that you don't want to ever discuss it. Why not be honest and just say that instead?
Why the hell not? Are you saying that once it is published, it'll become undisputed scientific consensus so quickly that it won't even be discussed on an internet forum like this one, where even the theories of evolution and of gravity are frequently called into question?

You won't tell us about your theory, you won't tell us about your evidence, you won't talk about your method...
What exactly are you expecting us to discuss?
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 12:09 PM   #27
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,628
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
When asked what your theory entails, you said you couldn't give any details the large volume of information needed to describe the theory in detail until you had published it.
Now it's correct.

Quote:
but if you don't really want to talk about your theory, then why start these threads? Attention? Looking for some persecution so you get to play Galileo? Attention?
I already explained that.

Let's get something straight. I don't appreciate the bait and switch terminology. You and others imply one thing which might be quite reasonable and then change the definition to something that isn't.

If you honestly think I'm being salty then give some straight answers to these questions:

1. Why would I post details of an unfinished theory on an open forum? No one here has been able to explain why this would be reasonable.

2. Even if I had the theory completed and was willing to type, say, 500 pages of text into the this forum what proof would there be that it was correct? So, based on rationalizations people here have given it still wouldn't be discussed even if the volume wasn't prohibitive.

3. To get past the volume issue it would need to be published and publicly available. At that point it either be proved or disproved by experiments. So, I wouldn't be discussing it here.

I guess the thing I really can't get through my head though is why someone openly insults me without even trying to be subtle and then accuses me of being insulting. If you just feel like insulting me for whatever reason you've come up with then just be honest about it.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 12:24 PM   #28
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,745
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
Okay, we're back to that again; it's a waste of time. Once the theory is published there won't be any discussion here. So, by saying that you want to wait until it is published you are actually saying that you don't want to ever discuss it. Why not be honest and just say that instead?

How do you expect anyone to discuss your theory while you refuse to tell them what it is? As long as you refuse to provide information about your theory, you are preventing any discussion of it. Why not be honest and just say that you don't want to discuss it?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 12:46 PM   #29
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,635
It does seem odd to post a thread just to tell people that you're not going to discuss the subject of the thread.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 01:08 PM   #30
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 724
I'm totally scoobied as to what barehl wants to actually discuss in this thread.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 01:11 PM   #31
jrhowell
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 272
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
1. Why would I post details of an unfinished theory on an open forum? No one here has been able to explain why this would be reasonable.
You started this thread to discuss your theory! If you don't want to provide details how about an overview?

Are you willing to post anything about it at all?

Originally Posted by barehl View Post
2. Even if I had the theory completed and was willing to type, say, 500 pages of text into the this forum what proof would there be that it was correct? So, based on rationalizations people here have given it still wouldn't be discussed even if the volume wasn't prohibitive.
So it will take hundreds of pages to explain your theory. Do you plan on publishing a book?

Posting it to a website?

Having it published in a prestigious journal?

Originally Posted by barehl View Post
3. To get past the volume issue it would need to be published and publicly available. At that point it either be proved or disproved by experiments. So, I wouldn't be discussing it here.
How do you see experimental confirmation coming about?

Do you plan to do your own research or to fund research being done by others?

Do you expect others to be so taken by your theory that they take it upon themselves to perform these experiments?


(So far I see no reason for this thread to be in Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology. The only mention of science so far was in the first post where it was called out as being different from the undisclosed theory that is the topic of this thread.)

Last edited by jrhowell; 12th November 2017 at 01:35 PM.
jrhowell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 02:05 PM   #32
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,427
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
Let's get something straight. I don't appreciate the bait and switch terminology. You and others imply one thing which might be quite reasonable and then change the definition to something that isn't.

If you honestly think I'm being salty then give some straight answers to these questions:

1. Why would I post details of an unfinished theory on an open forum? No one here has been able to explain why this would be reasonable.

2. Even if I had the theory completed and was willing to type, say, 500 pages of text into the this forum what proof would there be that it was correct? So, based on rationalizations people here have given it still wouldn't be discussed even if the volume wasn't prohibitive.

3. To get past the volume issue it would need to be published and publicly available. At that point it either be proved or disproved by experiments. So, I wouldn't be discussing it here.

I guess the thing I really can't get through my head though is why someone openly insults me without even trying to be subtle and then accuses me of being insulting. If you just feel like insulting me for whatever reason you've come up with then just be honest about it.
No, because you haven't answered mine.
What do you want to discuss in this thread, if not your theory?
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 01:06 AM   #33
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,916
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
I'm totally scoobied as to what barehl wants to actually discuss in this thread.
It's very strange. He seems to be complaining that we're not discussing his theory, whilst refusing to tell us anything about it to discuss. The insistence that once it's published there will be nothing to discuss is even stranger. If it's borne out by experiment there will almost certainly be lots of implications to discuss, and even if it's disproved it might well provide insights and new possibilities to explore.

It's all very odd.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 01:44 AM   #34
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,745
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
It's very strange. He seems to be complaining that we're not discussing his theory, whilst refusing to tell us anything about it to discuss. The insistence that once it's published there will be nothing to discuss is even stranger. If it's borne out by experiment there will almost certainly be lots of implications to discuss, and even if it's disproved it might well provide insights and new possibilities to explore.

It's all very odd.

It's not just that: he also claims to have developed "knowledge theory", and used it to develop his other theory. So that's two theories, one of which is complete enough for him to use to develop the other.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 04:55 PM   #35
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,727
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
Once the theory is published there won't be any discussion here.
This is the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of the forum. If you publish any science, mathematics, medicine or technology then we will be willing to discuss it here.

The issue is that you cannot or will not give any actual progress report on your theory. That would start with an understandable description of the theory. So far all we have is a vague "something to do with evolution" and off-topic posts.

How about a link to where "People also seemed very confused about what I was working on" that should have contained an understandable description that people got confused about?

Last edited by Reality Check; 15th November 2017 at 04:58 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 07:46 PM   #36
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,395
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
If had spent four years working on a theory like that I would be much more disappointed than you. In fact, I don't see how I could do that unless I was mentally unbalanced.
hmmmm.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 08:44 PM   #37
ShamelessGit
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 13
It sounds like you're working on something cool, but honestly, even if you wanted to give most of the details, I bet most of us here would not understand it.
ShamelessGit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2017, 06:03 AM   #38
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,680
Originally Posted by ShamelessGit View Post
It sounds like you're working on something cool, but honestly, even if you wanted to give most of the details, I bet most of us here would not understand it.
This isn't a Youtube comments section. There are mathematicians and neurobiologists here. I'm confident we'll be able to collectively grok whatever barehl presents. Which may explain his reluctance.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2017, 09:39 AM   #39
Cheetah
Critical Thinker
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 284
How about throwing us some small titbits?
As an example, relativity can be discussed, starting off from the simple premise that the speed of light is constant for all observers. Lots of concepts and implications relating to time, space, length etc. can be discussed starting off with just that. No need to get into any maths or the stuff Einstein actually published.
Don't you have concepts/conclusions that can be discussed without getting into all the nitty gritty difficult details that take years to prove and sort out?
What you have posted so far seems very interesting and you seem very sure about some things that don't necessarily seem so clear cut to me. I would like to know more.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 10:09 AM   #40
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,628
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
How do you expect anyone to discuss your theory while you refuse to tell them what it is?
Please stop shifting the definitions. Do you actually believe that I expect someone here to discuss minute details about a topic when those minute details are not available? That isn't a rational suggestion and it doesn't relate to anything I've posted on this forum. Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of argumentum absurdum?

Quote:
As long as you refuse to provide information about your theory, you are preventing any discussion of it.
Again, that sliding definition. Please stop pretending that any mention of ideas is the same as providing detailed arguments and evidence.

I know that there is a bridge in San Francisco called The Golden Gate Bridge. I know that it has been there for many decades. I don't know who designed it or how many workers it took to build or how long it took to build. I don't know how many tons of steel it used or how many miles of cable. I don't know its exact length, height, width or cost. But, according to you I can't say anything about that bridge unless I include all of the engineering, social, political, and economic information in fine detail. That isn't how people talk and you (and others here) know it. Why are you so dishonest when it comes to me?

Quote:
Why not be honest and just say that you don't want to discuss it?
I will not discuss important details of my theory until it is completed and set for publication which is the same standard that every practicing scientist in the country uses today. You already know this.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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 -7. The time now is 08:02 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.