Stephen Hawking

So, what's my game?

I think Scepti is conflating popularity with influence. Yet another thing for him to be wrong about.

Notice too that sceptimatic was unable to refute any of the claims I made about his ludicrous opinions of Hawking (above @ 09:51:58 AM)?

Typical of the guy, he just runs away from addressing the relevant comment when he's lost for an answer—which applies to most questions asked of him or criticisms levelled at him.  When it comes to the crunch, sceptimatic is as weak as feline's urine.

   

Quote from: BiJane on February 10, 2015, 02:25:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2015, 02:22:46 AM

And I'm asking you how people would know it's a lie to stop him tutoring?
The speak and spell like computer is tutoring, so how would anyone know if it was him or someone else just operating that machine by input of whatever is needed?

Well, for starters, he's alive: he still has enough muscle control to react somewhat. or, failing that, if he has no input onto his machine, that would be noticed too.
And regardless of specifics, a pretty basic rule of a conspiracy is don't put a lie in front of everyone's faces time and again, they might notice.

Ok, so it's logical to assume that if he is using his muscles to type out his stuff then he should be looking at the monitor to do this and should be concentrating on putting his words right...would you say this is a very fair assumption?

He prewrites his speeches because of how long it takes to write them. Here is a qoute from him from an interview regarding an upgrade to his chair.

However David Mason, of Cambridge Adaptive  Communication, fitted a small portable computer and a speech synthesizer to my  wheel chair. This system allowed me to communicate much better than I could  before. I can manage up to 15 words a minute. I can either speak what I have  written, or save it to disk. I can then print it out, or call it back and speak  it sentence by sentence. Using this system, I have written a book, and dozens of  scientific papers. I have also given many scientific and popular talks. They  have all been well received.

He uses a combination of cheek twitches and eye movement to write them.

So when he is giving a speech, it is just playing a script he wrote before hand. Hence why he isn't up there struggling with writing something out.

As an example for when he does have to write on the fly, it does take a long time to receive a response.

During a Technology, Entertainment, & Design Conference talk, it took him seven minutes to answer a question."

So no, it's not a fair assumption that while he is giving a speech that he will be staring at the monitor and writing each sentence he is speaking.

So, what's my game?

Instant denial of anything that goes against mainstream acceptance. Nothing wrong with that in a way. It's up to you, so I'm just telling you I can see your game and I understand that nothing I ever say no matter what it is. If it goes against mainstream, then it's instant denial, probably after reading a few words.

This is why I generally bypass a lot of what you say, if you've noticed - probably why you tend to stay away from me. It works better that way, I think.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 10, 2015, 10:49:26 AM

So, what's my game?

I think Scepti is conflating popularity with influence. Yet another thing for him to be wrong about.

Nah. It's all about putting the mind to work. It matters not whether you or anyone else thinks I talk crap. I think that about you people, so we're all in teh same boat.
But...as I said in another thread, it's about finding a common ground to debate from and to try and keep it as civil as possible from both sides.

Notice too that sceptimatic was unable to refute any of the claims I made about his ludicrous opinions of Hawking (above @ 09:51:58 AM)?

Typical of the guy, he just runs away from addressing the relevant comment when he's lost for an answer—which applies to most questions asked of him or criticisms levelled at him.  When it comes to the crunch, sceptimatic is as weak as feline's urine.

   

What claims were these?

Before you answer, I suggest you read what I actually did say first of all - and understand that I have postulated scenarios. I have no direct evidence to put anything out as a fact. I merely put it up for questioning. I'm 100% aware that the people I'm dealing with in this thread are all going to drink from the same trough. I'm also aware that in 95% of cases I'm on my own.
People do not want to enter into my world because they are afraid that getting tagged with me, will render them a target of ridicule.
There's some that will be looking it all up and soon enough one or two will come in and understand what I'm getting at.

Just be aware that I'm questioning it.

He prewrites his speeches because of how long it takes to write them. Here is a qoute from him from an interview regarding an upgrade to his chair.

Upgrading his chair? They done a piss poor job of that when you consider that the man is supposed to be this world genius. That voice is speak and spell or wargames W.O.P.R type. Something is not right about all this.

He uses a combination of cheek twitches and eye movement to write them.

I don't buy this for one second.

So when he is giving a speech, it is just playing a script he wrote before hand. Hence why he isn't up there struggling with writing something out.

Yeah, I agree with this. A script wrote beforehand, just possibly not by him.

As an example for when he does have to write on the fly, it does take a long time to receive a response.

Not according to some footage I've seen, especially one where Magnus Magnusson is asking him about god on a show with two other well known sci-fi writers.
Once Magnusson had asked the question, Hawking's computer replied almost instantly and in depth. No 7 minutes or even 1 minute.

Yeah I know what's coming. " oh but this was TV and no doubt this will have been cut in or already scripted beforehand."
There's lots of ways to wriggle out of this if he's being controlled or whatever.

During a Technology, Entertainment, & Design Conference talk, it took him seven minutes to answer a question."

Did you see any footage of this time delay?

So no, it's not a fair assumption that while he is giving a speech that he will be staring at the monitor and writing each sentence he is speaking.

It's a fair assumption that he should be if he's taking in direct questions, otherwise how would he know to answer if he's not watching a screen?

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 10, 2015, 12:41:13 PM

Notice too that sceptimatic was unable to refute any of the claims I made about his ludicrous opinions of Hawking (above @ 09:51:58 AM)?

Typical of the guy, he just runs away from addressing the relevant comment when he's lost for an answer—which applies to most questions asked of him or criticisms levelled at him.  When it comes to the crunch, sceptimatic is as weak as feline's urine.

   

What claims were these?

Before you answer, I suggest you read what I actually did say first of all - and understand that I have postulated scenarios. I have no direct evidence to put anything out as a fact. I merely put it up for questioning. I'm 100% aware that the people I'm dealing with in this thread are all going to drink from the same trough. I'm also aware that in 95% of cases I'm on my own.
People do not want to enter into my world because they are afraid that getting tagged with me, will render them a target of ridicule.
There's some that will be looking it all up and soon enough one or two will come in and understand what I'm getting at.

Just be aware that I'm questioning it.

Scepti, I believe you are wrong.
I completely and utterly destroyed you in the flame war, and if you think otherwise, you are very mislead.
You are no longer the best.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2015, 01:37:34 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 10, 2015, 12:41:13 PM

Notice too that sceptimatic was unable to refute any of the claims I made about his ludicrous opinions of Hawking (above @ 09:51:58 AM)?

Typical of the guy, he just runs away from addressing the relevant comment when he's lost for an answer—which applies to most questions asked of him or criticisms levelled at him.  When it comes to the crunch, sceptimatic is as weak as feline's urine.

   

What claims were these?

Before you answer, I suggest you read what I actually did say first of all - and understand that I have postulated scenarios. I have no direct evidence to put anything out as a fact. I merely put it up for questioning. I'm 100% aware that the people I'm dealing with in this thread are all going to drink from the same trough. I'm also aware that in 95% of cases I'm on my own.
People do not want to enter into my world because they are afraid that getting tagged with me, will render them a target of ridicule.
There's some that will be looking it all up and soon enough one or two will come in and understand what I'm getting at.

Just be aware that I'm questioning it.

Scepti, I believe you are wrong.
I completely and utterly destroyed you in the flame war, and if you think otherwise, you are very mislead.
You are no longer the best.

Take this stuff to angry ranting. I'm giving you a bit of friendly advice.

Nah. Nah we're not friends

Quote from: Rama Set on February 10, 2015, 12:30:39 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 10, 2015, 10:49:26 AM

So, what's my game?

I think Scepti is conflating popularity with influence. Yet another thing for him to be wrong about.

Nah. It's all about putting the mind to work. It matters not whether you or anyone else thinks I talk crap. I think that about you people, so we're all in teh same boat.
But...as I said in another thread, it's about finding a common ground to debate from and to try and keep it as civil as possible from both sides.

The popularity referred to was Hawking's as populiser of Science to the general population; not as to whether people agree with you...They don't, you're barkng mad and probably require some help.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2015, 01:31:52 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 10, 2015, 12:30:39 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 10, 2015, 10:49:26 AM

So, what's my game?

I think Scepti is conflating popularity with influence. Yet another thing for him to be wrong about.

Nah. It's all about putting the mind to work. It matters not whether you or anyone else thinks I talk crap. I think that about you people, so we're all in teh same boat.
But...as I said in another thread, it's about finding a common ground to debate from and to try and keep it as civil as possible from both sides.

The popularity referred to was Hawking's as populiser of Science to the general population; not as to whether people agree with you...They don't, you're barkng mad and probably require some help.

To the extreme naive and gullible, I would agree with you about the barking mad bit. How can those without eyes, see?
How can those without ears, hear?
How can those with a one track mind, change track?
I honestly would not expect you or people like you to think anything other than what you think, just the same as I would never expect a trained dog to accept being controlled by anyone other than the controllers of that dog.

You are well within your rights to think of me as you see fit. You can expend your entire life, if need be, in calling me every name that can be mustered in a ridicule sense. It still doesn't aid your mind in helping you to understand anything other than to simply copy and regurgitate what's been officially stamped into it by your peers who you trust unconditionally.

All I can ever call you are names that fit your way of thought and mannerisms. Naive, gullible, sheep like, obedient to  your masters and arrogant.
You're entitled to it all and good luck.

I wasn't calling you ny names, iwas pointing out a fact.

if you look at my name its says shills in it ...spooky eh

I wasn't calling you ny names, iwas pointing out a fact.

if you look at my name its says shills in it ...spooky eh

I'm not calling you a shill. Just naive. Anyway, this won't achieve anything other than back biting, so let's just plod along with the matters at hand.

Scepti, why would it matter if we showed you footage?  Every time you are showed a video of something you do not believe beforehand, you dismiss it?  Why would you bother mentioning it?  Instead tell us something that you would actually accept.

Youtube has a BBC doc on Hawking. At one point, near the end, they show Hawking giving dictation to a PhD student. It is an arduous process with the PhD student watching Hawking scroll through his word matrix. The student tries to expedite it by guessing the word Hawking is spelling. Each word takes about 3-5 seconds to get correct. See for yourself and I eagerly await your incredulity.

Scepti, why would it matter if we showed you footage?  Every time you are showed a video of something you do not believe beforehand, you dismiss it?  Why would you bother mentioning it?  Instead tell us something that you would actually accept.

Youtube has a BBC doc on Hawking. At one point, near the end, they show Hawking giving dictation to a PhD student. It is an arduous process with the PhD student watching Hawking scroll through his word matrix. The student tries to expedite it by guessing the word Hawking is spelling. Each word takes about 3-5 seconds to get correct. See for yourself and I eagerly await your incredulity.

You are totally missing the point. It's not about the person in the chair to an onlooker. It's about the machine used in view of anyone. They simply do not know whether it's Hawking or someone operating that computer that is answering questions.

Admit this, even if you think it's unlikely but remotely possible.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 11, 2015, 06:01:58 AM

Scepti, why would it matter if we showed you footage?  Every time you are showed a video of something you do not believe beforehand, you dismiss it?  Why would you bother mentioning it?  Instead tell us something that you would actually accept.

Youtube has a BBC doc on Hawking. At one point, near the end, they show Hawking giving dictation to a PhD student. It is an arduous process with the PhD student watching Hawking scroll through his word matrix. The student tries to expedite it by guessing the word Hawking is spelling. Each word takes about 3-5 seconds to get correct. See for yourself and I eagerly await your incredulity.

You are totally missing the point. It's not about the person in the chair to an onlooker. It's about the machine used in view of anyone. They simply do not know whether it's Hawking or someone operating that computer that is answering questions.

Admit this, even if you think it's unlikely but remotely possible.

No, because he can respond to questions presented to him, and you can watch him respond. With the method Rama just gave you a place to look at in practice.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2015, 06:25:28 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 11, 2015, 06:01:58 AM

Scepti, why would it matter if we showed you footage?  Every time you are showed a video of something you do not believe beforehand, you dismiss it?  Why would you bother mentioning it?  Instead tell us something that you would actually accept.

Youtube has a BBC doc on Hawking. At one point, near the end, they show Hawking giving dictation to a PhD student. It is an arduous process with the PhD student watching Hawking scroll through his word matrix. The student tries to expedite it by guessing the word Hawking is spelling. Each word takes about 3-5 seconds to get correct. See for yourself and I eagerly await your incredulity.

You are totally missing the point. It's not about the person in the chair to an onlooker. It's about the machine used in view of anyone. They simply do not know whether it's Hawking or someone operating that computer that is answering questions.

Admit this, even if you think it's unlikely but remotely possible.

No, because he can respond to questions presented to him, and you can watch him respond. With the method Rama just gave you a place to look at in practice.

Do you have anything to say?

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 11, 2015, 07:41:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2015, 06:25:28 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 11, 2015, 06:01:58 AM

Scepti, why would it matter if we showed you footage?  Every time you are showed a video of something you do not believe beforehand, you dismiss it?  Why would you bother mentioning it?  Instead tell us something that you would actually accept.

Youtube has a BBC doc on Hawking. At one point, near the end, they show Hawking giving dictation to a PhD student. It is an arduous process with the PhD student watching Hawking scroll through his word matrix. The student tries to expedite it by guessing the word Hawking is spelling. Each word takes about 3-5 seconds to get correct. See for yourself and I eagerly await your incredulity.

You are totally missing the point. It's not about the person in the chair to an onlooker. It's about the machine used in view of anyone. They simply do not know whether it's Hawking or someone operating that computer that is answering questions.

Admit this, even if you think it's unlikely but remotely possible.

No, because he can respond to questions presented to him, and you can watch him respond. With the method Rama just gave you a place to look at in practice.

Do you have anything to say?

Yep, let me restate it.

No, because he can respond to questions presented to him, and you can watch him respond. With the method Rama just gave you a place to look at in practice.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2015, 07:50:14 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 11, 2015, 07:41:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2015, 06:25:28 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 11, 2015, 06:01:58 AM

Scepti, why would it matter if we showed you footage?  Every time you are showed a video of something you do not believe beforehand, you dismiss it?  Why would you bother mentioning it?  Instead tell us something that you would actually accept.

Youtube has a BBC doc on Hawking. At one point, near the end, they show Hawking giving dictation to a PhD student. It is an arduous process with the PhD student watching Hawking scroll through his word matrix. The student tries to expedite it by guessing the word Hawking is spelling. Each word takes about 3-5 seconds to get correct. See for yourself and I eagerly await your incredulity.

You are totally missing the point. It's not about the person in the chair to an onlooker. It's about the machine used in view of anyone. They simply do not know whether it's Hawking or someone operating that computer that is answering questions.

Admit this, even if you think it's unlikely but remotely possible.

No, because he can respond to questions presented to him, and you can watch him respond. With the method Rama just gave you a place to look at in practice.

Do you have anything to say?

Yep, let me restate it.

Quote

No, because he can respond to questions presented to him, and you can watch him respond. With the method Rama just gave you a place to look at in practice.

Ok so you basically have nothing to say other than to try and be father to Rama set. No problem.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 11, 2015, 07:55:14 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2015, 07:50:14 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 11, 2015, 07:41:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2015, 06:25:28 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 11, 2015, 06:01:58 AM

Scepti, why would it matter if we showed you footage?  Every time you are showed a video of something you do not believe beforehand, you dismiss it?  Why would you bother mentioning it?  Instead tell us something that you would actually accept.

Youtube has a BBC doc on Hawking. At one point, near the end, they show Hawking giving dictation to a PhD student. It is an arduous process with the PhD student watching Hawking scroll through his word matrix. The student tries to expedite it by guessing the word Hawking is spelling. Each word takes about 3-5 seconds to get correct. See for yourself and I eagerly await your incredulity.

You are totally missing the point. It's not about the person in the chair to an onlooker. It's about the machine used in view of anyone. They simply do not know whether it's Hawking or someone operating that computer that is answering questions.

Admit this, even if you think it's unlikely but remotely possible.

No, because he can respond to questions presented to him, and you can watch him respond. With the method Rama just gave you a place to look at in practice.

Do you have anything to say?

Yep, let me restate it.

Quote

No, because he can respond to questions presented to him, and you can watch him respond. With the method Rama just gave you a place to look at in practice.

Ok so you basically have nothing to say other than to try and be father to Rama set. No problem.

Well now I have something to add.

You're reading comprehension and debate skills are about on par with a 5 year old as is your understanding of science.

Better?

You are totally missing the point. It's not about the person in the chair to an onlooker. It's about the machine used in view of anyone. They simply do not know whether it's Hawking or someone operating that computer that is answering questions.

Sorry, I thought when you asked for video footage you meant you wanted video footage.  This again goes back to you making clear, adult requests. 

By the way, did you even look at the video I mentioned?  Once again, it is you dismissing something out of hand.  Serial contrarianism at it's finest.

Admit this, even if you think it's unlikely but remotely possible.

Yes it is possible.  So now that I have admitted that, where do we go from here?

Ok so you basically have nothing to say other than to try and be father to Rama set. No problem.

He had something to say, you just chose to take it as a petulant child.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2015, 07:57:29 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 11, 2015, 07:55:14 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2015, 07:50:14 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 11, 2015, 07:41:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2015, 06:25:28 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 11, 2015, 06:01:58 AM

Scepti, why would it matter if we showed you footage?  Every time you are showed a video of something you do not believe beforehand, you dismiss it?  Why would you bother mentioning it?  Instead tell us something that you would actually accept.

Youtube has a BBC doc on Hawking. At one point, near the end, they show Hawking giving dictation to a PhD student. It is an arduous process with the PhD student watching Hawking scroll through his word matrix. The student tries to expedite it by guessing the word Hawking is spelling. Each word takes about 3-5 seconds to get correct. See for yourself and I eagerly await your incredulity.

You are totally missing the point. It's not about the person in the chair to an onlooker. It's about the machine used in view of anyone. They simply do not know whether it's Hawking or someone operating that computer that is answering questions.

Admit this, even if you think it's unlikely but remotely possible.

No, because he can respond to questions presented to him, and you can watch him respond. With the method Rama just gave you a place to look at in practice.

Do you have anything to say?

Yep, let me restate it.

Quote

No, because he can respond to questions presented to him, and you can watch him respond. With the method Rama just gave you a place to look at in practice.

Ok so you basically have nothing to say other than to try and be father to Rama set. No problem.

Well now I have something to add.

You're reading comprehension and debate skills are about on par with a 5 year old as is your understanding of science.

Better?

Not really but at least it was input of some sort.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2015, 07:57:29 AM

Ok so you basically have nothing to say other than to try and be father to Rama set. No problem.

He had something to say, you just chose to take it as a petulant child.

Sticking up for daddy. I can't argue with that.

I think it's more than obvious to everybody here that it's ultimately pointless attempting to have any sort of mature, rational debate with sceptimatic about somebody like Stephen Hawking.

He's listed a number of absurd claims about Hawking's intellectual and academic credentials for which he has not the slightest of negative evidence; made several ill-informed comments about motor neuron disease which proves he has zero understanding of the condition; posited several self-contradictory (!) claims as to the means by which Hawking communicates; conflates inability to verbalise coherently with a lack of intelligence; claims others write Hawking's lectures for him; all this despite never having met the guy or even attended one of his lectures.  Presumably sceptimatic can now add clairvoyance to his list of thirteen academic qualifications—qualifications that are apparently of a higher status than the multiple science degrees of Hawking?

If nothing else, sceptimatic's continual farrago of lies, irrational personal opinions, misrepresentation,  half-truths, and a lack of any viable evidence for his absurd claims even further illustrates just what a mental midget the guy is.

What's even funnier, and even more convincing of this, is that the poor guy seriously doesn't seem to realise that everybody else posting here is laughing at him, and/or taking the piss out of him.

           

You are totally missing the point. It's not about the person in the chair to an onlooker. It's about the machine used in view of anyone. They simply do not know whether it's Hawking or someone operating that computer that is answering questions.

That's true.  Maybe Hawking has a midget physicist hidden in the bottom of his wheelchair who is actually answering the questions.  Why didn't I think of this before?

I think it's more than obvious to everybody here that it's ultimately pointless attempting to have any sort of mature, rational debate with sceptimatic about somebody like Stephen Hawking.

He's listed a number of absurd claims about Hawking's intellectual and academic credentials for which he has not the slightest of negative evidence; made several ill-informed comments about motor neuron disease which proves he has zero understanding of the condition; posited several self-contradictory (!) claims as to the means by which Hawking communicates; conflates inability to verbalise coherently with a lack of intelligence; claims others write Hawking's lectures for him; all this despite never having met the guy or even attended one of his lectures.  Presumably sceptimatic can now add clairvoyance to his list of thirteen academic qualifications—qualifications that are apparently of a higher status than the multiple science degrees of Hawking?

If nothing else, sceptimatic's continual farrago of lies, irrational personal opinions, misrepresentation,  half-truths, and a lack of any viable evidence for his absurd claims even further illustrates just what a mental midget the guy is.

What's even funnier, and even more convincing of this, is that the poor guy seriously doesn't seem to realise that everybody else posting here is laughing at him, and/or taking the piss out of him.

           

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/stephen-hawking-pictured-on-jeffrey-epsteins-sex-slave-caribbean-island-9974955.html
Go gettem sunshine.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/report-stephen-hawking-frequents-sex-clubs-in-his-free-time-2012-2

Bangin the bang. The big bang.
He's gottit goin on.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100427003737AA5sEbB
Now I don't know what to think.