ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
Last edited:
Moderated Is belief itself dangerous for your brain? (A rethink is in order)
- Thread starter ProgrammingGodJordan
- Start date
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Funny thing where someone is using an incognito window to post their "private" information in public.
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
I reserve normal windows for merely directly artificial intelligence aligned data.
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
How silly Norseman; for it is undoubtable that I am a graduate via uwi.
Part A
Here is my student uwi email:
jordan.bennett@mymona.uwi.edu
[IMGw=400]http://i.imgur.com/KvfuEKX.png[/imgw]
Part B
Here is my researchgate profile, which is bound strictly to the uwi student email (jordan.bennett@mymona.uwi.edu):
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jordan_Bennett6
[IMGw=400]http://i.imgur.com/gdXNIUp.png[/imgw]
Part C
And once more, an image capture of the degree:
[IMGw=400]http://i.imgur.com/z8Qeq3u.jpg[/imgw]
Last edited by a moderator:
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
I guess that shows all of us?
Nobody ********s on the 'net, or in real life, do they? go to 8:25:
Nobody ********s on the 'net, or in real life, do they? go to 8:25:
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
I have observed the desired range of the video you presented.
Of what consequence is such a sequence, betwixt your nonsensical accusation, and the valid evidence amidst my uwi status prior presented?
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
Astronomy once included mythical components, amidst science in antiquity.
Like astronomy, the archaic God concept is scientifically re-definable/updatable, such that nonsense is purged.
The resulting definition:
As such, humans thereafter persist as Gods, as scientifically redefined; and one need not believe in empirically observed sequences, such as humans.
Thereafter, God as scientifically redefined, need not be believed in, as such persists as an empirically observable distribution; i.e. humans.
Thusly, one may be an atheist, and observe the redefinition as valid, as one need not believe in such a redefinition as scientifically prescribed.
http://www.academia.edu/31660547/A_scientific_redefinition_of_God_by_an_atheist
FOOTNOTE:
Belief by definition, opposes science.
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
It rather sounds like you're arguing against what you quoted yourself as saying, with this. You've got nothing to dispute what I said, then, unsurprisingly. Belief is still not even close to a system. Of course, there are plenty of systems made out of beliefs, just like there are many castles made out of sand, but just like sand is not a castle, belief is not a system.
More accurately, to qualify as a belief, evidence is entirely irrelevant. High or low "evidence concern" cannot even come into the picture. To qualify as the subset of beliefs that do indeed concern themselves with evidence, evidence concern can come into play, but that's dealing with a subset of the larger set.
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
And unlike astronomy, the stories collectively classified as mythology were never even superficially science, even among the sciences of antiquity. That archaic sciences sometimes borrowed from mythological tales cannot make what they were borrowing from scientific retroactively.
"God" is redefinable, but only via semantics. It was never a scientific term in the first place, though, and such very much needs to be taken into account when anyone is trying to invoke the more ancient beginnings of science as somehow being in any way relevant to the case that they're making. Serious thought should also be put into why one would be trying to arbitrarily redefine the word "god," as well, though, rather than simply using one of the much clearer and more currently appropriate terms that are already widely accepted to describe the trait in question.
Last edited:
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2014
- Messages
- 4,950
Believing you're a god, because you can redefine God to mean 'person', is scientific and not based on belief because... word salad. Sure.
And about that degree, I don't see what others are seeing, what's the proof that it's fake?
And about that degree, I don't see what others are seeing, what's the proof that it's fake?
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
[IMGw=350]http://i.imgur.com/P9OKdTN.jpg[/IMGw]
As is evident, mythology is ancient science.
That mythological components were purged from science, does not suddenly render mythology separate from ancient science.
Quite the invalid response, of yours.
See the cosmological argument (source).
By extension, that a model is semantically updatable, does not suddenly render the updating to be non-scientific.
As is evident, mythology is ancient science.
That mythological components were purged from science, does not suddenly render mythology separate from ancient science.
Aridas said:
Quite the invalid response, of yours.
See the cosmological argument (source).
By extension, that a model is semantically updatable, does not suddenly render the updating to be non-scientific.
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
Simply, that belief may concern science, is not separate from its entire definition; that it is especially absent evidence.
Both beliefs and systems are expressible as plans or ideas.
https://www.google.com.jm/search?q=...0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=belief+synonym
https://www.google.com.jm/search?q=...0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=system+synonym
Aridas said:
Don't you tire of expressing nonsense?
No, evidence is not "entirely irrelevant", it is largely so, as expressed in the standard definition:
That it especially concerns non-evidence, designates that it has low concern for evidence.
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
It is rather odd that there is doubt regarding my computer science training; for like many other computer scientists, I encode programming languages and programming language IDE's, operating system interfaces, artificial neural networks, and quasicrystal based algorithms.
An image capture of an operating system interface, encoded by myself:
[IMGw=400]http://i.imgur.com/nQDqSRr.png[/IMGw]
Last edited by a moderator:
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2014
- Messages
- 4,950
Well, I can't tell whether or not that's impressive, because I'm not a programmer myself.
I was just wondering what made them say your diploma is fake.
I was just wondering what made them say your diploma is fake.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
If you followed the link, you would have found that anyone could buy that diploma OTC for a few bucks.
Now, it happens that I still have mine and they are replete with watermarks, embossing, wax seals, etc. Getting a little threadbare and worn after 30 years service but still the real deal. Not anything near a printed A4 page that one could simply cobble together. I cannot even scan mine, I don't own a scanner larger than A4.
Now, when I was challenged, on this very site, over my credentials some years back, I didn't post any fake diploma. What I posted was my full on membership of the Institute of Engineers, my membership number, and an open invitation to anyone to simply call the institute and verify with them that I was really a professional in the game.
I supplied no phone number for the institute intentionally, in order that others could look it up independently, not rely upon some number I provided.
How many folks do you think actually checked and verified? Guess.
Zero.
Simply stated, cranks are all noise and nothing else.
Rightio, then. On we go to the diploma in question. At the very least, Genuine UWI diplomas have as a bare minimum an embossed stamp. This is absent. UWI diplomas are regularly faked as evidenced above. I could easily lash together a diploma for "Porpoise of Life" in the field of "Behaviour of Pixies" should I be so motivated. Actually, that is tempting.
As for the so called evidence of attendance at UWI, all that tells us is that our protagonist obtained a user account. So what? It's easy to do so and means nothing. Even the janitor could have such.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Are you suggesting that any random moron could get one?
Thermal
August Member
I think The Norseman was preemptively addressing a possible counterclaim, that you earned the degree online and that is why the diploma looks like it came off the back of a box of breakfast cereal.
Agreed, and you are claiming no relevant expertise on the subject of CS. UWI's website does list Computer Science as a standalone program, too, at the St Augustine and Cave Hill schools (linked below). FWIW, I accept your claim of a legit BSc and congratulate you for that accomplishment. You really should demand a refund if you took any courses relating to English language use and comprehension though.
http://apps.uwi.edu/programmes/
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
That there is a universe of delusional individuals that present themselves as having earned all manner of qualifications and decorations when in fact they have neither.
Between your tortured use of the english language and everything else you posted in the last couple of pages you're neck and neck with the #1 guy on the Stolen Valor hit parade.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, not odd at all. You're proffering a questionable diploma as proof of expertise in an unrelated field. Computer science is not a science in the sense that it does not generally rely upon teaching and applying the scientific method. It used to be something of a science, but these days it seems to be little more than vocational training. Proffering a questionable and inapplicable credential suggests an irrational desire to be accepted as an expert. People who appear desperate to be seen as experts generally have the poorest claim to expertise. Facts have been presented which challenge your claim to whatever expertise you're claiming, for whatever reason. You did not explain those facts, so no, it's not at all odd to continue question your claim on the basis of evidence provided. Can you explain why your diploma resembles those that can be purchased online, right down to the snippets of poorly redacted signtures? If you're holding up a CS diploma as a special qualification in general science -- no. That's a non-starter. You got no more applicable scientific training than anyone else who also went to a college.
Nope.
I taught computer science classes at a major American university -- one of the first original Internet sites. You're using the word "encode" completely incorrectly. What you mean is that you code them. "Coding" is the practice of expressing an algorithm in an interpretable programming language. Encoding, in contrast, is the technique of representing higher-order information as bit patterns corresponding to computable units. Unicode, for example, is an encoding. A program that works on Unicode strings would be said to have been coded.
I went to GitHub and looked at the toy programs you have there. Sorry, not impressed. They're straightforward implementations of existing basic algorithms, at least some of them apparently contributed to by others. That does not make you a scientist. In my organization that would qualify you to apply for a junior programmer position, but for reasons all too apparent here I doubt you'd pass the interview. If you're trying to pass yourself off as a scientist apart from code-monkey practicum, don't bother. You are to a scientist as an apprentice carpenter is to an architect. Certainly not a basis from which to suggest we should accept your psychology navel-gazing as the product of an appropriately trained and tested author.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Then don't claim any great expertise on the basis of one. As I said, you would be qualified to apply for a junior software developer position in my organization, but certainly not as any sort of scientist. And yes, I hire scientists -- I have two full-time physicists (PhD level) on my staff. The general-education classes you may have taken as part of a baccalaureate may have given you some rudimentary knowledge of various other sciences, and an introduction to scientific methodology. But it does not bestow any elevated qualification. You may safely assume that most if not all your critics here have at least a similar level of education.
Thirty years ago you could call computer science something of a science. The programs that arose out of mathematics departments required their graduates to understand a great deal of the theory that makes computing work. Conversely, the programs that arose out of engineering departments often required their graduates to complete the core engineering curriculum, which is intensely rigorous. While neither of these is especially congruent with the classic sciences such as physics, chemistry, or with the social sciences such as psychology and some forms of economics, they nevertheless required a substantial rigor of thought.
You can still get this in modern computer science curricula, but only at the graduate level from what I've seen. Most modern undergraduate computer science programs seem to have been diluted to little more than vocational training, which to me is a disappointment. I suspect there may be a reason for it, but it's still disappointing.