The Tiger Challenge

[AN2]

Tiger might explain it to ye

What's the probability you're putting on that Dan?

Tiger doesn't explain, he spews forth..

because he showed that he is far smarter than ye.

now can we close this unsavory thread

 

[Declan]

I think Tiger had a big win here and we should move on. Important stuff going down now

 

[AN2]

The Tiger Challenge Commision has concluded that there was a high probability of a conspiracy

We would have asked the site to investigate itself but.. what's the fucken point?, said the chairman

 

[clarke-connolly]

I have been very lightly skimming this thread, could some-one give me a brief summary of what has been going on in this thread ? !

 

[AN2]

I have been very lightly skimming this thread, could some-one give me a brief summary of what has been going on in this thread ? !

Sure thing Con:

I pointed out (in another thread) that guest posting was currently impossible

Dan confirmed (that it was)

Tiger then said that only a moron like me wouldn't be able to figure out how to guest post

I said, okay Tiger, you do it then

Dan told him how to do it

And then he (Tiger) did do it

The hilarious part of course is that he (Tiger) is claiming that he figured it out by himself

 

[clarke-connolly]

Sure thing Con:

I pointed out (in another thread) that guest posting was currently impossible

Dan confirmed (that it was)

Tiger then said that only a moron like me wouldn't be able to figure out how to guest post

I said, okay Tiger, you do it then

Dan told him how to do it

And then he (Tiger) did do it

The hilarious part of course is that he (Tiger) is claiming that he figured it out by himself

Good Briefing.

 

[Declan]

I have been very lightly skimming this thread, could some-one give me a brief summary of what has been going on in this thread ? !

@Myles O'Reilly is your man

 

[Declan]

The answer was obvious, admit , you are upset that it did not dawn on you

 

[AN2]

The answer was obvious, admit , you are upset that it did not dawn on you

Are you disputing the Commission's findings?

You even tried to pull it off by banning him (@Tiger) for 5 minutes Dan!

 

[Declan]

You cant be serious, you think I gave Tiger the password.

well Wolf thought I was Val and Gowl thinks I am Scolairebocht.
Maybe I am actually Tiger, or maybe I am you and I started this thread.

I think you ate Tiger and you figured out the answer yourself

 

[AN2]

You cant be serious, you think I gave Tiger the password.

well Wolf thought I was Val and Gowl thinks I am Scolairebocht.
Maybe I am actually Tiger, or maybe I am you and I started this thread.

I think you ate Tiger

He's only been not posting for a day!

and you figured out the answer yourself

 

[Declan]

Can we close this thread and better luck next time

 

[AN2]

Can we close this thread and better luck next time

After my funny joke in post #51 (even I lold), I don't see whynot

 

[Declan]

Perhaps he is in total shock that so many was of a lower IQ than ne by more than 5 points, and just packed it in

 

[AN2]

NEW! Tiger Challenge

Earlier today @Tiger wrote of yours truly:

I make a statement about something and he asks endless questions and dodges questions like a professional question dodger.

Which is of course ridiculous, what with me being the least likely here to dodge a question

So I now invite Tiger to give some example(s) of these (allegedly) dodged questions..

What I think we'll find is that they were either answered (up to half a dozen times) or the answer is unknown

Basically, the way it works with Tiger is if you don't give his predetermined answer (which is usually - God), then he'll consider you to have "dodged" the question

 

[Tiger]

You seem desperate for company today James.

Why not entertain yourself this Friday evening by answering these questions -


1) How did non-living matter acquire the algorithmic information necessary to self-replicate and encode error-correcting genetic instructions before natural selection existed to favour such systems?

2) By what non-circular physical process does subjective first-person experience (‘qualia’) arise from third-person measurable brain activity, when all known physical descriptions are objective and devoid of subjectivity?

 

[AN2]

You seem desperate for company today James.

Why not entertain yourself this Friday evening by answering these questions -

Okay, I thought you might cite previous examples of questions but there's no harm in rewriting them here I guess..

1) How did non-living matter acquire the algorithmic information necessary to self-replicate and encode error-correcting genetic instructions

Non-living matter to living is the process of abiogenesis - not fully understood

"Encode error-correcting genetic instructions" sounds a bit like yer man, Stephen C. Myer, to me

What's your answer?

before natural selection existed to favour such systems?

I don't understand the relevance of this tbh, before natural selection existed?

2) By what non-circular physical process does subjective first-person experience (‘qualia’) arise from third-person measurable brain activity, when all known physical descriptions are objective and devoid of subjectivity?

Well, I told you, more than once (which you completely ignored) that I don't think that consciousness is brain activity

The nature of consciousness is also not fully understood however it's thought that a brain, or body, "materialism" is a necessity. I said all of this to you before.

What's your answer?

 

[Tiger]

Okay, I thought you might cite previous examples of questions but there's no harm in rewriting them here I guess..


Non-living matter to living is the process of abiogenesis - not fully understood

"Encode error-correcting genetic instructions" sounds a bit like yer man, Stephen C. Myer, to me

What's your answer?

More lame promissory materialism/scientism.

Abiogenesis isn’t an explanation but a label for the mystery of how lifeless matter began carrying coded, error-correcting information. Chemistry can describe reactions, but it can’t explain how symbols and meanings; like DNA’s genetic code, arise from physics alone. Until that gap is bridged, no one, including you, can actually answer the question, only rename it and deflect the answer to some imagined future.

I don't understand the relevance of this tbh, before natural selection existed?


Well, I told you, more than once (which you completely ignored) that I don't think that consciousness is brain activity

The nature of consciousness is also not fully understood however it's thought that a brain, or body, "materialism" is a necessity. I said all of this to you before.

What's your answer?

You say consciousness isn’t just brain activity, yet you also insist a brain or body is a necessary condition; that’s a contradiction unless you can spell out how brain processes constitute first-person experience rather than merely correlate with it.

Neuroscience can map reliable neural correlates of consciousness, but mapping correlations is not the same as explaining why those physical processes should feel like anything (the explanatory gap / the knowledge-argument).

Simply asserting that “materialism is necessary” without a mechanism is promissory materialism: it punts the problem to future science instead of specifying how subjective qualia are produced by objective events. So either give a principled account of constitution (how matter becomes subjectivity) or admit your position rests on an empirical hope, not an explanation.

I have shamed you into these two replies, which you normally never give and predictably it’s worked out badly for you.

Tiger 2 - 0 Jimmy

 

[AN2]

More lame promissory materialism/scientism.

Ah Jaysus, not this again

Abiogenesis isn’t an explanation but a label for the mystery of how lifeless matter began carrying coded, error-correcting information. Chemistry can describe reactions, but it can’t explain how symbols and meanings; like DNA’s genetic code, arise from physics alone. Until that gap is bridged, no one, including you, can actually answer the question, only rename it and deflect the answer to some imagined future.

Abiogenesis is a description of something, what I said it was, in fact

Secondly, will you now admit that your idea of me "dodging questions" is you asking me unanswerable ones that you yourself won't even answer.. and anyone with a clue knows why. Deep down, you know that your God of the gaps stuff isn't the answer

You say consciousness isn’t just brain activity, yet you also insist a brain or body is a necessary condition; that’s a contradiction unless you can spell out how brain processes constitute first-person experience rather than merely correlate with it.

That isn't a reason for it being a "contradiction"

Neuroscience can map reliable neural correlates of consciousness, but mapping correlations is not the same as explaining why those physical processes should feel like anything (the explanatory gap / the knowledge-argument).

Simply asserting that “materialism is necessary” without a mechanism is promissory materialism: it punts the problem to future science instead of specifying how subjective qualia are produced by objective events. So either give a principled account of constitution (how matter becomes subjectivity) or admit your position rests on an empirical hope, not an explanation.

 

[AN2]

Okay, I thought you might cite previous examples of questions but there's no harm in rewriting them here I guess..


Non-living matter to living is the process of abiogenesis - not fully understood

"Encode error-correcting genetic instructions" sounds a bit like yer man, Stephen C. Myer, to me

What's your answer?

I don't understand the relevance of this tbh, before natural selection existed?

That ^ by the way was an eminently answerable question and one of, well, all of the questions I asked @Tiger in my post that he dodged

When did natural selection not exist, Tiger? When, or what, was a time before natural selection? Natural selection has always existed, like water has aways been wet

Well, I told you, more than once (which you completely ignored) that I don't think that consciousness is brain activity

The nature of consciousness is also not fully understood however it's thought that a brain, or body, "materialism" is a necessity. I said all of this to you before.

What's your answer?

 

[Tiger]

Ah Jaysus, not this again


Abiogenesis is a description of something, what I said it was, in fact

Secondly, will you now admit that your idea of me "dodging questions" is you asking me unanswerable ones that you yourself won't even answer.. and anyone with a clue knows why. Deep down, you know that your God of the gaps stuff isn't the answer

Calling abiogenesis a “description” concedes the very point; it names the phenomenon without explaining it.

The question of how semantically coded, error-correcting information emerged from unguided chemistry remains unanswered not because it’s a “God of the gaps” issue, but because it’s a category problem: physical processes can describe syntax (arrangement of molecules), but not semantics (meaning).

My critique isn’t that “science hasn’t found the answer yet,” but that no purely material framework can, even in principle, generate a symbolic coding system without invoking teleology or mind. That’s not a gap in data; it’s a gap in ontology.

That isn't a reason for it being a "contradiction"

It is a contradiction because you’re asserting two incompatible claims: that consciousness is not brain activity, yet that a brain or body is necessary for it. If consciousness isn’t reducible to matter, then matter cannot be a necessary condition for its existence; if it is necessary, then you’re tying consciousness to material substrates after all.

You can’t have it both ways; correlation without dependence is incoherent.

The real issue isn’t semantics but ontology: either consciousness is ontologically distinct from matter, or it’s an emergent property of matter. Simply saying “we don’t fully understand it yet” avoids that logical fork, but it doesn’t resolve it.

Tiger 4 - 0 Jimmy

 

[AN2]

Calling abiogenesis a “description” concedes the very point; it names the phenomenon without explaining it.

You've been told a thousand times that abiogenesis is not understood, it is however the idea of living matter from non-living, as you said yourself

The question of how semantically coded, error-correcting information emerged from unguided chemistry remains unanswered not because it’s a “God of the gaps” issue, but because it’s a category problem: physical processes can describe syntax (arrangement of molecules), but not semantics (meaning).

My critique isn’t that “science hasn’t found the answer yet,” but that no purely material framework can, even in principle, generate a symbolic coding system without invoking teleology or mind. That’s not a gap in data; it’s a gap in ontology.

Stop trying to fool my audience, you are invoking Intelligent Design, the computer programmer in the sky who you think is your personal God, J.C. Layer upon layer of unproven nonsense

It is a contradiction because you’re asserting two incompatible claims: that consciousness is not brain activity, yet that a brain or body is necessary for it. If consciousness isn’t reducible to matter, then matter cannot be a necessary condition for its existence; if it is necessary, then you’re tying consciousness to material substrates after all.

You can’t have it both ways; correlation without dependence is incoherent.

The real issue isn’t semantics but ontology: either consciousness is ontologically distinct from matter, or it’s an emergent property of matter. Simply saying “we don’t fully understand it yet” avoids that logical fork, but it doesn’t resolve it.

Tiger 4 - 0 Jimmy

The nature of consciousness is not fully understood by science

Consciousness, in the only way we know anything about it, requires a living organism

Why is that a contradiction?

 

[AN2]

That ^ by the way was an eminently answerable question and one of, well, all of the questions I asked @Tiger in my post that he dodged

When did natural selection not exist, Tiger? When, or what, was a time before natural selection? Natural selection has always existed, like water has aways been wet

 

[AN2]

Calling abiogenesis a “description” concedes the very point; it names the phenomenon without explaining it.

The question of how semantically coded, error-correcting information emerged from unguided chemistry remains unanswered not because it’s a “God of the gaps” issue, but because it’s a category problem: physical processes can describe syntax (arrangement of molecules), but not semantics (meaning).

My critique isn’t that “science hasn’t found the answer yet,” but that no purely material framework can, even in principle, generate a symbolic coding system without invoking teleology or mind. That’s not a gap in data; it’s a gap in ontology.


It is a contradiction because you’re asserting two incompatible claims: that consciousness is not brain activity, yet that a brain or body is necessary for it. If consciousness isn’t reducible to matter, then matter cannot be a necessary condition for its existence; if it is necessary, then you’re tying consciousness to material substrates after all.

You can’t have it both ways; correlation without dependence is incoherent.

The real issue isn’t semantics but ontology: either consciousness is ontologically distinct from matter, or it’s an emergent property of matter. Simply saying “we don’t fully understand it yet” avoids that logical fork, but it doesn’t resolve it.

Tiger 4 - 0 Jimmy

I think that's probably less than the number of questions you've dodged now..

 

[Tiger]

You've been told a thousand times that abiogenesis is not understood, it is however the idea of living matter from non-living, as you said yourself

You keep repeating that “abiogenesis is not understood” as if restating ignorance were an argument.

That’s exactly the point; it’s not understood, and naming it doesn’t explain it. You have no mechanism by which mindless chemistry produces a coded information system with error correction and semantic rules, so you retreat to lazy ridicule and slogans about “sky programmers.”

You have nothing.

Stop trying to fool my audience, you are invoking Intelligent Design, the computer programmer in the sky who you think is your personal God, J.C. Layer upon layer of unproven nonsense

You don’t have an ‘audience’ you spoofing eejit.

The nature of consciousness is not fully understood by science

Consciousness, in the only way we know anything about it, requires a living organism

Why is that a contradiction?

Saying “science doesn’t fully understand consciousness” isn’t an argument.

The contradiction lies in claiming that consciousness both requires a living organism and yet is not reducible to its physical processes. You can’t make consciousness contingent on matter while denying that it’s material.

More importantly, invoking scientific ignorance as a resting point is not an explanation - it’s epistemic surrender.

The real issue isn’t that science “hasn’t discovered it yet,” but that the tools of science, which measure objective phenomena, are in principle incapable of capturing subjective experience.

Until you can explain how first-person awareness emerges from or interacts with third-person brain states without collapsing into dualism or contradiction, you haven’t answered the question and you can’t.

Tiger 6 - 0 Jimmy

 

[AN2]

You keep repeating that “abiogenesis is not understood” as if restating ignorance were an argument.

I keep on stating fact.. Kryptonite to you

That’s exactly the point; it’s not understood, and naming it doesn’t explain it. You have no mechanism by which mindless chemistry produces a coded information system with error correction and semantic rules, so you retreat to lazy ridicule and slogans about “sky programmers.”

You have nothing.

What is the "mechanism" that you're describing?

Unfortunately 4 U I know what it is..

You don’t have an ‘audience’ you spoofing eejit.

Saying “science doesn’t fully understand consciousness” isn’t an argument.

Facts hurt your feels

The contradiction lies in claiming that consciousness both requires a living organism and yet is not reducible to its physical processes. You can’t make consciousness contingent on matter while denying that it’s material.

Conciousness not being fully understood is basically not "contradictory" to almost anything else you could say about it relating to science. You not understanding things like that is why I end up in these infinite loops of your stupidity with you

More importantly, invoking scientific ignorance as a resting point is not an explanation - it’s epistemic surrender.

It's not X, it's Y

The real issue isn’t that science “hasn’t discovered it yet,” but that the tools of science, which measure objective phenomena, are in principle incapable of capturing subjective experience.

Until you can explain how first-person awareness emerges from or interacts with third-person brain states without collapsing into dualism or contradiction, you haven’t answered the question and you can’t.

Tiger 6 - 0 Jimmy

You've dodged all of my questions, I'd say about at least 7 by now

 

[AN2]

Tiger Dodges 6 - 0 Jimmy Dodges

Okay, I think it's time for my personal national anthem..


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9QS0q3mGPGg

 

[Tiger]

Okay, I think it's time for my personal national anthem..


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9QS0q3mGPGg

Weirdo.

You got your face punched in as usual.

 

[AN2]

You got your face punched in as usual.

Deluded, as always, Tiger

 

[AN2]

YESTERDAY I asked my pal @Myles O'Reilly to ask @Tiger a question that I had asked him myself that he had consistently dodged. Here is Tiger's reply to Myles..

Imagine thinking that this is a clever question.

Myles, before I state the bleeding obvious, for a laugh can you walk us through what ‘natural selection’ looked like in a world where nothing was alive?

Demonstrate to our lovely audience just how brain atrophied you and James are.

Of course, Tiger replied with a simple answer (because he is) when the question was being asked in the context of one of the questions Tiger submitted to me in the Tiger Challenge..

1) How did non-living matter acquire the algorithmic information necessary to self-replicate and encode error-correcting genetic instructions before natural selection existed to favour such systems?

Now that's a question that might make sense to an IDiot but it doesn't to me

In fact, if you copy paste Tiger's question word-for-word with one alteration, specifically removing the first word - "How", you get the following AI result -

 

[AN2]

Tiger Challenge 2: Final Analysis

He failed more miserably than I thought he would. Although my prediction beforehand was basically correct

 

[Wolf]

Tiger Challenge 2: Final Analysis

He failed more miserably than I thought he would. Although my prediction beforehand was basically correct

You're not well, Jimmy.
Get some help.

 

[Tiger]

You're not well, Jimmy.
Get some help.

I remember Fishalt accurately observing that James clearly has daddy issues due to being abandoned as a child. He’s clearly suffers from some sort of unhealed trauma.

I think the regular beatings he gets from me on here make him feel alive. He’s obsessed with me. I think I’m name checked and tagged in about 80% of his posts. I’d say he sees Tigers in his dreams.

 

[AN2]

NEW! Tiger Challenge

Earlier today @Tiger wrote of yours truly:


Which is of course ridiculous, what with me being the least likely here to dodge a question

So I now invite Tiger to give some example(s) of these (allegedly) dodged questions..

What I think we'll find is that they were either answered (up to half a dozen times) or the answer is unknown

Basically, the way it works with Tiger is if you don't give his preordained answer (which is - God dunnit), then he'll consider you to have "dodged" the question

The main way I think it was worse than I predicted (above) was that car crash of a first question

 

[Tiger]

The main way I think it was worse than I predicted (above) was that car crash of a first question

Replying to yourself….about me….your two favourite hobbies.

You’re a lunatic Jimbob.

 

[AN2]

The main way I think it was worse than I predicted (above) was that car crash of a first question

It was the ULTIMATE Tiger question..

Because he has a very low IQ and is a complete ignoramus.. His first question was:

How did this thing that never happened, happen?

lol What a fucken jackass

 

[Tiger]

It was the ULTIMATE Tiger question..

Because he has a very low IQ and is a complete ignoramus.. His first question was:

How did this thing that never happened, happen?

lol What a fucken jackass

Time for your meds Jimmy

 

[AN2]

It was the ULTIMATE Tiger question..

Because he has a very low IQ and is a complete ignoramus.. His first question was:

How did this thing that never happened, happen?

lol What a fucken jackass

Take note that I made note of it in my initial reply -

Post in thread 'The Tiger Challenge' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/the-tiger-challenge.1357/post-145698

I was quite conscious to not ask him WTF he was talking about - "before natural selection existed" because then he would just do his routine about me answering a question with a question. So I simply told him that non-living matter to living is abiogenesis - not understood. Then of course he responds with his trademark stupidity - That's not an argument! "Dodger", "Spoofer" etc.

Yes, of course it's not an argument, it's a fact

 

[Tiger]

Take note that I made note of it in my initial reply -

Post in thread 'The Tiger Challenge' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/the-tiger-challenge.1357/post-145698

I was quite conscious to not ask him WTF he was talking about - "before natural selection existed" because then he would just do his routine about me answering a question with a question. So I simply told him that non-living matter to living is abiogenesis - not understood. Then of course he responds with his trademark stupidity - That's not an argument! "Dodger", "Spoofer" etc.

Yes, of course it's not an argument, it's a fact

Haha, oh this is pure gold!

James I didn’t think you could out-do yourself with your memorable probability blunder of 50/50, but you have.

What is abundantly clear is that your comprehension skills are so severely handicapped that you couldn’t actually understand the original question and what was being asked. Then convinced in your own stupidity you’ve gone down some rabbit hole of ignorance.

Let me explain….The question highlighted that what is understood under the term 'natural selection' only operates once life already exists, meaning it can refine living systems but not create them. So it asks, how did lifeless matter, before evolution could act, generate the coded, error-correcting information necessary for self-replication; something no natural process has ever been shown to do?

Would you like me to break it down into simpler terms like you are a 5 year old with a head injury?

 

[AN2]

Haha, oh this is pure gold!

James I didn’t think you could out-do yourself with your memorable probability blunder of 50/50, but you have.

lol FFS.. He's still going on about this years later..

What is abundantly clear is that your comprehension skills are so severely handicapped that you couldn’t actually understand the original question and what was being asked. Then convinced in your own stupidity you’ve gone down some rabbit hole of ignorance.

Let me explain….The question highlighted that what is understood under the term 'natural selection' only operates once life already exists, meaning it can refine living systems but not create them. So it asks, how did lifeless matter, before evolution could act, generate the coded, error-correcting information necessary for self-replication; something no natural process has ever been shown to do?

Would you like me to break it down into simpler terms like you are a 5 year old with a head injury?

Tiger, you asked me me how can this living thing have these living features before natural selection existed. You still don't understand, do you

(and please don't post pictures of yourself)