Moderated Is belief itself dangerous for your brain? (A rethink is in order)

[BStrong]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited moderated content

One need not believe in the factum, that belief by definition, opposes science.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 12

That UWI must be some university if they turned out PGJ.

If your professional communications are as poorly written and thought out as what you're throwing at the wall here you don't have much of a future.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited moderated content

One need not believe in the factum, that belief by definition, opposes science.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited moderated content

That UWI must be some university if they turned out PGJ.

If your professional communications are as poorly written and thought out as what you're throwing at the wall here you don't have much of a future.

It is odd that you have began to entail my expression style.

Separately, see my prior quote:

I apologize par the usage of non-layman bound sentence structure.

I am not trained as an artificial intelligence (deep learning) researcher (via institution), and thereafter, I had absorbed deep learning absent university's frame.

Machine learning papers tend to utilize sophisticated sentence structures; I entail such a manner, whence I may reduce the aforesaid structures.

As an example, observe this simple artificial neural network, of mine via github:

https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/SIMPLE-NEURAL-NETWORK

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited moderated content. See previous comment for full explanation.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 12

 

[Loss Leader]

Confucious says: "He who resorts to the dictionary has already lost. He who resorts to Wikipedia hasn't even started."

 

[JayUtah]

I apologize par the usage of non-layman bound sentence structure.

No, you're not being asked to dumb things down for laymen. Rest assured your critics are quite able to understand technical writing and other formal forms. You're being asked to write coherent English. What you seem to think mimics the style of papers you may have read ends up as barely-comprehensible gibberish, and your critics are quite able to tell the difference.

Machine learning papers tend to utilize sophisticated sentence structures; I entail such a manner, whence I may reduce the aforesaid structures.

Yes, there is an academic style of writing. Your writing isn't anything of the sort.

As an example, observe this simple artificial neural network, of mine via github:

We don't need any further examples of your highly affected style. Just stop trying to impress needlessly.

 

[The Norseman]

I took a political science class once. We had to read the Federalist Papers. I'm not a political scientist. The professor, Dr. Matt Kerbel, is now a department head. He's a political scientist. Political science is a kind of science. it is not the same kind of science as astronomy chemical engineering. A degree in political science does not translate to expertise in botany or pharmacology.

I of course understand that. He doesn't and my post was to mock him for it.

Specifically, real scientists communicate most often using the nomenclature appropriate to the field. Vizzini says, "Pull the thing...and the other thing," while real sailors can name every rope and spar on their ship with the appropriate name. "Code" vis "encode" is only the beginning. Real scientists don't frantically Google for simplistic definitions and abbreviated descriptions.

Yes, exactly. Real scientists use the language and words that are appropriate to the topic being discussed, relative to the audience and/or other contributors.

To be fair here, it's not that the definitions are wrong. It's that he's trying to apply absurdly fallacious logic to them to try to twist them into saying what he wishes they said. Much the same applies to the Wiki quotes. As for his book, well... when his quotes have frequently been a line up of one fallacy after another, that's almost impressive in a way. If I was interested in teaching a class on fallacies, I'd be tempted to buy it as exercise material.

I guess it does have some value then, in some limited circumstances.

Ironically, a quote of mine you had cited, approached the entirety of your value-less response:

It is disappointing that I need express quotes of mine, that simply refer to trivially accessible facts.

The thoughtless turpitude of the phalanges must necessitate thusly the paradigm of diagrammatically ostentatious homogeneity.

Of course, you wouldn't know this. You're but a babe in the woods as education is concerned with thusly. You might consider re-attending the abstemious foreboding circumbobulatory nature of the dwelling before you decide to harangue the fallopian charges whence thy credible fortuitous champions it.

I apologize par the usage of non-layman bound sentence structure.

LOL

"I apologize for being forced to talk down to you silly unintelligent creatures!"

I am not trained as an artificial intelligence (deep learning) researcher (via institution), and thereafter, I had absorbed deep learning absent university's frame.

Machine learning papers tend to utilize sophisticated sentence structures; I entail such a manner, whence I may reduce the aforesaid structures.

Nay, kind sir, fret ye not!

Lo, tho soft through the window the moon's gentle light doth break, hold thy heart fast and courageous the day is upon us!

By the way, where's the evidence that you've been asked about?

Surely you're not derailing your own thread from its divine purpose of proving... something or other, I can't tell what.

 

[Aridas]

TL; DR.

TL; DR.

All the more reason to treat your opinion as worthless.

Quite the value-less, invalid response if yours.

You wish. You've yet to show it.

On the contrary, I had long presented many a fact (including image captures of standard definitions and Wikipedia Data), that responders simply selected to ignore.

Quite the opposite. They weren't ignored at all. They were demonstrated to be invalid for the purposes that you were trying to use them for. Frequently repeatedly.

Here is a simple task:

Present evidence (a quote of mine amidst this thread) where I supposedly disregarded facts.

Because you'll TL;DR anything of substance and then pretend it didn't happen, yet again, why not just go with the post right after this challenge?

That belief largely concerns non evidence, is but not fallacious.

The simple fact is that this is irrelevant to what you quoted, on top of moving the goalposts from disputed territory into safe, but only for this moment. On top of that, it's pretty much a straw man fallacy, given that you're implying that others in this thread were disputing that trivial fact, rather than the various other false assertions that have actually been disputed.

This is probably already too long for you to handle in a single post, but your responses to the simple facts that belief is not a system and synonym chains do not count as valid evidence would serve just fine.

 

[John Jones]

Or maybe you should take your own advice, seeing that "when" and 'whence" don't mean anything close to the same thing. Write however you want, but your attempt to impress beyond your language ability means many of your posts wind up as unintelligible gibberish. You're trying to sound well educated, but you just end up looking like an idiot.

This.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

No, you're not being asked to dumb things down for laymen. Rest assured your critics are quite able to understand technical writing and other formal forms. You're being asked to write coherent English. What you seem to think mimics the style of papers you may have read ends up as barely-comprehensible gibberish, and your critics are quite able to tell the difference.

Yes, there is an academic style of writing. Your writing isn't anything of the sort.

We don't need any further examples of your highly affected style. Just stop trying to impress needlessly.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 0. You are not obliged to respond to others, but if you do respond you must be civil.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 12

 

[Aridas]

Confucious says: "He who resorts to the dictionary has already lost. He who resorts to Wikipedia hasn't even started."

Hey, try not to get caught up in the instinct to overgeneralize one's rejection of BS! By what PGJ's said, that's how non-beliefism came to be, after all. Do you really want to lower yourself to that level?

 

[John Jones]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited moderated content

You first.

 

[John Jones]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited moderated content

Analytical Chemistry. 35 years. Your turn.

 

[JayUtah]

Yet another value-less sequence...

Yet more gibberish. My post was for your benefit. You may think you're sounding well-educated, but you're really sounding like a pretentious fool. You may certainly reject my advice. But you will continue to be mocked for your illiteracy.

 

[JayUtah]

What are your areas of research?

High-performance computational methods and tools for engineering and science. I've been doing it for 30 years.

Now that you seem to think expertise is back on the menu, we know you have no qualification in cognitive neuroscience -- one of the sciences that pertains to human belief. It's a predictable ploy, trying to focus attention away from your own inadequacy and trying to undermine the credibility of your critics. But you are the claimant here, and you have failed to establish a foundation for your claims.

 

[abaddon]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited moderated content

?

Said the man with a fake diploma.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

High-performance computational methods and tools for engineering and science. I've been doing it for 30 years.

Now that you seem to think expertise is back on the menu, we know you have no qualification in cognitive neuroscience -- one of the sciences that pertains to human belief. It's a predictable ploy, trying to focus attention away from your own inadequacy and trying to undermine the credibility of your critics. But you are the claimant here, and you have failed to establish a foundation for your claims.

Yes, I am attempting to unravel what type of brains reject reply 466.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

John Jones, JayUtah, and Norseman:

What do you beings garner is life's meaning/purpose/goal state (if applicable)?

 

[abaddon]

John Jones, JayUtah, and Norseman:



What do you beings garner is life's meaning/purpose/goal state (if applicable)?

Why do you believe there is such a goal? Didn't you state you have no beliefs?

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, I am attempting to unravel what type of brains reject reply 466.

There is no "type of brain" that rejects your claims. Your claims are rejected because they're simplistic and poorly founded. You don't get to approach the debate of your claims with the presumption that you're an unsung genius and that everyone else is just too inferior to get you.