Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Brad McFall
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 1 of 51 (14815)
08-04-2002 2:04 AM


Brad seems to put considerable effort into doing his postings.
The question is:
Has anyone here comprehended anything of substance from Brad's messages?
Do you (generally) even bother trying to read them anymore?
Moose

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by blitz77, posted 08-04-2002 2:10 AM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-04-2002 11:48 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 16 by Brad McFall, posted 08-26-2002 1:51 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 18 by nator, posted 08-29-2002 10:52 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 51 (14816)
08-04-2002 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
08-04-2002 2:04 AM


Ummm...I'd have to agree that I haven't comprehended much from his messages ---no offense Brad McFall, but us below average people don't have a clue about what you, the genius, is talking about

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-04-2002 2:04 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Brad McFall, posted 08-26-2002 2:33 PM blitz77 has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 51 (14832)
08-04-2002 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
08-04-2002 2:04 AM


Yes Brad is a mystery nearly as challenging as the topic of this board.
Sometimes Brad's posts almost make sense for a few lines and then suddenly they go haywire again. (Hi Brad ).
He uses the language of a vast number of fields that I am also interested in but uses it better than I can. It is only in fields I have specifically made myself an expert or semi-expert that I can out-jargon him.
Regardless of the field of topic he seems to know the names of researchers and their models. Crucially these are usually fields where I can't immediately verify the names off-hand. I often suspect that he doesn't understand what underlies them but I simply can't tell!
He frequently tries to use classic physical sciences exlanations to explain life sceinces phenomenon. And yet he claims to have studied primarily life sciences I think.
Here's evidence that he does actually respond to us:
* When I challenged him on habitual name dropping he once told me that he mentions a lot of researchers names (who most of us have never heard of mind you) becasue that is how he remembers their work.
* I challenged Brad to respond in point form to 4 questions I numbered. He did actually cite my point numbers although everything else only half made sense.
* On one discusion we had about something Brad actually agreed with me about something I had challenged him on and changed his tune for the next few posts (I think to do with the importance of protein folds etc).
So is Brad a hoax, a chat robot, a smart guy with an attention deficit ??? I'm not sure although he's probably the most sophisticated chat robot I've ever encountered if he is one. But I don't think I could say he quite passes the Turing test.
Brad, if your out there I hope you can accept this in the spirit of puzzlement it was written in! You and I have connected a few times and it was great. Come on Brad, clue us in.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-04-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-04-2002 2:04 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by John, posted 08-04-2002 11:59 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 51 (14833)
08-04-2002 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tranquility Base
08-04-2002 11:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
So is Brad a hoax, a chat robot, a smart guy with an attention deficit ??? I'm not sure although he's probably the most sophisticated chat robot I've ever encountered if he is one. But I don't think I could say he quite passes the Turing test.
hmmm..... Brad as state of the art Eliza... interesting concept. And gosh-darned scary too...
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-04-2002 11:48 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-05-2002 12:05 AM John has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 51 (14834)
08-05-2002 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by John
08-04-2002 11:59 PM


^ Maybe Percy is an AI programmer and you and I are the only real people here . . . or maybe it's only you John . . .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by John, posted 08-04-2002 11:59 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by John, posted 08-05-2002 12:30 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 51 (14837)
08-05-2002 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
08-05-2002 12:05 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Maybe Percy is an AI programmer and you and I are the only real people here . . . or maybe it's only you John . . .
Weird....
I feel like that all the time
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-05-2002 12:05 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-05-2002 12:39 AM John has not replied
 Message 13 by Brad McFall, posted 08-22-2002 5:12 PM John has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 51 (14838)
08-05-2002 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by John
08-05-2002 12:30 AM


^ I think we should just create chat-robot versions of oursleves, at least for the time we can't spend on line (sleep, vacations etc) and just let them loose. The program could intermittently post new threads with titles like 'Undeniable evidence that Elvis was on the ark/evolved from my testube'.
We could pre-create all our reused answers and write a smart 'so there' generator that incorporated enough keywords from previous posts that we could get away with being accused only of being a little obtuse.
And for the last time I wont open the payload doors.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-04-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by John, posted 08-05-2002 12:30 AM John has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 8 of 51 (14865)
08-05-2002 2:33 PM


When you think of Brad McFall, think of John Nash.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by halcyonwaters, posted 08-19-2002 2:44 AM Percy has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 9 of 51 (15096)
08-09-2002 12:23 PM


I have the same problem as TB - I get bits and pieces that seem to make sense, but then they get buried in incomprehensibility. There are quite a few areas he's touched on in various posts that interest me - a recent example is his (apparent) stance against Wilson's group selectionism. It's a fascinating topic, but I was terrified of commenting because I knew the response would be both long and totally incomprehensible. Brad seems to know what he's talking about (when I can understand it). I just wish there was some way of engaging him in a conversation.

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by gene90, posted 08-09-2002 1:39 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 10 of 51 (15100)
08-09-2002 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Quetzal
08-09-2002 12:23 PM


I have the same problem, and I don't agree with the concept that Brad's posts should be ignored or are useless to us because there is meaning in them and that meaning is usually relevant to the discussion at hand. I just can't continue to follow that meaning any further than a sentence or two, and I have to start guessing and making assumptions about the context. I have been unable to follow more than two of his posts in succession. He has long, very complex sentences, makes strange comparisons, introduces new ideas suddenly, and often seems to use his own buzzwords. We don't need a translator to understand much of what he is saying, but a pencil and paper to take notes and examine phrases would probably help and we shouldn't hesitate to ask him what he is talking about. I want to encourage him to continue posting and participating in the forums and he may learn to post more clearly and we may become more accustomed to the peculiar diction he uses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Quetzal, posted 08-09-2002 12:23 PM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by degreed, posted 08-18-2002 10:28 AM gene90 has not replied
 Message 15 by Brad McFall, posted 08-23-2002 1:25 PM gene90 has not replied

  
degreed
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 51 (15602)
08-18-2002 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by gene90
08-09-2002 1:39 PM


As hard as it is to specifically discount people (we all deserve a chance!) i may need to disagree with you , gene. Being well-read in any of these fields should require basic literacy. Since i agree that BM almost makes sense from time to time before making another hard right and leaving me behind, i think we can say that he is literate. If this is the case, we are left with the fact that he chooses to communicate thus. I can do this in French, being fluent, but since the point is intelligent debate, i'm going to go wild and stick with a format that everyone else may comprehend. Likewise, BM at least appears to know what he's saying. However, if none of us are getting it, then what's the point? Whether it's derived from a random ai program or an intellect beyond comprehension, the net effect is useless without effective communication.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by gene90, posted 08-09-2002 1:39 PM gene90 has not replied

  
halcyonwaters
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 51 (15657)
08-19-2002 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
08-05-2002 2:33 PM


quote:
When you think of Brad McFall, think of John Nash.
Are you talking about the real John Nash? Or the John Nash the Real John Nash is based on?
David

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 08-05-2002 2:33 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 08-22-2002 6:14 PM halcyonwaters has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 13 of 51 (15941)
08-22-2002 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by John
08-05-2002 12:30 AM


You all boosted my ego higher than is normal and did make me laugh. But aside for the issue of group selection for which I have not been working on yet again another criticism of Provine I hope you dont mind me passing that on to another time and before it really would have started to rain cats and dogs etc etc Let ME only say that I was quite suprised to read in B. Russel's ANALYSIS OF MATTER something Percipient may have given his name from. I do not know and this has caused a bit of a pause to my comprehension of this my favorite C/E site.
I am starting to actually read PHYSICS now and this is also making it more difficult for me to put the posts together but I will try in the future to keep on trying to not make so many right or left turns. I want to get the point of looking at and criticizing equations as I do words but that is likely still only a dream of aformentioned mammals.
I am a bit worried however that there was a scientific hiccup when we all seem to accept spin of electrons from a man-made magnetic field in a gas and then accept with Feyman that QED gives the biology with work. I am fairly certain that Maxwell had a better visualization of dynamcis as they actually exist in biology but let me not ramble on the trailings of mylobed brain and wait till the colloid gels a little more.
I really did appreciate this retro or pro spective on me. Thank you all with all sincerity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by John, posted 08-05-2002 12:30 AM John has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 14 of 51 (15945)
08-22-2002 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by halcyonwaters
08-19-2002 2:44 AM


quote:
Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
quote:
When you think of Brad McFall, think of John Nash.
Are you talking about the real John Nash? Or the John Nash the Real John Nash is based on?
David

I was familiar enough with John Nash to know that the movie was way off base when it had him working as a code-breaker extraordinaire for the Pentagon, but then it took the gratifying twist of revealing it was all a product of his mind, certainly well within the bounds of Hollywood dramatic license. After seeing the movie I read the book, which was full of detail, and I found that the portions describing Nash's communication of his ideas often reminded me of Brad.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by halcyonwaters, posted 08-19-2002 2:44 AM halcyonwaters has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 15 of 51 (15999)
08-23-2002 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by gene90
08-09-2002 1:39 PM


[QUOTE][B]the concept that Brad's posts should be ignored[/QUOTE]
[/B]
There is a sense in which this, as concept, may be true, particulary as Pcy is nice to say of "remembering me". That is good. I did not want to be memberd in common sense but if somthing else should bring to mind something I wrote, what esle would one write for, the ego of an author? So Percy is able to ignore my posts if he wants to. This is very good.
I have not continued with the folding proteins,not because I am not interested but becasue it would require some physical chemistry knowledge I do not posses and I am trying to work out a more physically and less chemically basis (of notion of density no matter the velocity) for my statements of what would count in energetically insignificant behavior that I feel Provine missed in trying to understand Wright's reference to orthogenesis yet the time I do this (neophenogenesis criticism?)in may be suspect and hence properly in a position to be ignored. Of course-I- can not, but you all are correct to do so, until I come clean and clear and in community without going straight to unless jail >200$.....
The meaning should be clear. As this is a coffed spot and thus there is place and a time to relax and not feel that one's guts have to be opened to every German comment on ecology. Let me leave this inclination at that and try in time to address some of the details that were brought up in this thread. I just am not sure that some of them ought not to be moved to the more substantive lists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by gene90, posted 08-09-2002 1:39 PM gene90 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024