Another Puppy On sci.electronics.basics Gets House Trained

[Bret Cahill]

Which project?

All of them, since they are likely all as poorly presented as the one I
specifically had in mind

How do you know with seeing them?

Are you suggesting that great inventors sometimes don't occasionally
have bad ideas? To the contrary, the bad ideas of most successful
inventors greatly out number the good ideas.

Edison went through 10,000 bad ideas before getting a light bulb.

Successful inventors just try so many things they can select and
choose the good ones.

You have really demonstrated you are ignorant of the design process.

And we haven't even gotten to the part where you dodge the question
about all _your_ inventions and patent numbers.

Yup, that's where this is heading. Another house training.

Apparently puppy training is in big demand around here.


Bret Cahill


"There are no bad ideas."

-- the Governator

 

[John Larkin]

"There are no bad ideas."

-- the Governator

"There are no stupid ideas, only stupid people."

-- John

 

[Bret Cahill]

It worked again.

Now I need a way to house train 'em by the dozen.


Bret Cahill

Which project?
All of them, since they are likely all as poorly presented as the one I
specifically had in mind

How do you know with seeing them?

Are you suggesting that great inventors sometimes don't occasionally
have bad ideas?  To the contrary, the bad ideas of most successful
inventors greatly out number the good ideas.

Edison went through 10,000 bad ideas before getting a light bulb.

Successful inventors just try so many things they can select and
choose the good ones.

You have really demonstrated you are ignorant of the design process.

And we haven't even gotten to the part where you dodge the question
about all _your_ inventions and patent numbers.

Yup, that's where this is heading.  Another house training.

Apparently puppy training is in big demand around here.

Bret Cahill

"There are no bad ideas."

-- the Governator

 

[Bret Cahill]

"There are no bad ideas."

-- the Governator

"There are no stupid ideas, only stupid people."

Especially that circular furrow denier.

Whatever happened to him?

We know he could really type "LOL."


Bret Cahill

 

[tg]

On Aug 5, 3:20 pm, "Kevin Aylward" <kaExtractT...@kevinaylward.co.uk>
wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.

Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

Which project?

All of them, since they are likely all as poorly presented as the
one I specifically had in mind

How do you know with seeing them?

Are you suggesting that great inventors sometimes don't occasionally
have bad ideas?

Nope. You are nothing even remotely resembling anything like a great
inventor, child.
Just a pathetic wanker, actually.

To the contrary, the bad ideas of most successful inventors greatly
out number the good ideas.

Thats just plain wrong too.

Edison went through 10,000 bad ideas before getting a light bulb.

You've plucked that number out of your arse too. We can tell that by
the smell.
Successful inventors just try so many things they can select and
choose the good ones.

Some do, plenty dont.

You have really demonstrated you are ignorant of the design process.

You in spades above, child.

And we haven't even gotten to the part where you dodge
the question about all _your_ inventions and patent numbers.

You in spades, child.

Not one. Zero, nada, ziltch.

Yup, that's where this is heading.  Another house training.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.

Apparently puppy training is in big demand around here.

Whats needed around here is arse kicking, and you are getting yours
in spades, child.
"There are no bad ideas."

-- the Governator

Wota terminal fuckwit.

I am stunned with this answer. Its trivially obvious that by most random
variations (i.e. new ideas) are detrimental variations,

That isn't trivially obvious at all, or even true, depending on the
context. Most variations in the evolutionary context are probably
neutral.

noting the inherent
Darwinian random variation, selection and replication algorithm that the
brain actually uses.(http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/intelligence.html, see illusion
of creativity bottom of page)

I would suggest that, for example, you do some research on, for example,
Einstein, and the number of false starts and numerous errors he made from
1907 to 1915 in obtaining the General Theory Of Relativity.

In this context, you have to distinguish between conceptualization and
implementation. Einstein was indeed creative in recognizing the
problem(s) that he dealt with and 'thinking outside the box' in
finding the direction to follow. Once that decision is made, of course
there is a process of trial and error in working out the details---
indeed, it is the nature of mathematics and some physics that those
details are not subject to intuition but must be worked through.
Otherwise we wouldn't need the math, would we?

-tg

Most ideas by experts and novices alike, are worthless. Its that simple
really.

Kevin Aylward

www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Immortalist]

On Aug 5, 12:31 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

Kevin Aylward <kaExtractT...@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote



Rod Speed wrote
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
Which project?
All of them, since they are likely all as poorly presented as the one I specifically had in mind
How do you know with seeing them?
Are you suggesting that great inventors sometimes don't occasionally have bad ideas?
Nope. You are nothing even remotely resembling anything like a great inventor, child.
Just a pathetic wanker, actually.
To the contrary, the bad ideas of most successful inventors greatly out number the good ideas.
Thats just plain wrong too.
Edison went through 10,000 bad ideas before getting a light bulb.
You've plucked that number out of your arse too. We can tell that by the smell.
Successful inventors just try so many things they can select and choose the good ones.
Some do, plenty dont.
You have really demonstrated you are ignorant of the design process.
You in spades above, child.
And we haven't even gotten to the part where you dodge
the question about all _your_ inventions and patent numbers.
You in spades, child.
Not one. Zero, nada, ziltch.
Yup, that's where this is heading. Another house training.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
Apparently puppy training is in big demand around here.
Whats needed around here is arse kicking, and you are getting yours in spades, child.
"There are no bad ideas."

-- the Governator

Wota terminal fuckwit.
I am stunned with this answer.

Your problem.

Its trivially obvious that by most random variations (i.e. new ideas)

New ideas are nothing like random variations.

are detrimental variations, noting the inherent Darwinian random variation, selection and replication algorithm that
the brain actually uses.

Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.

Neural Darwinism, a large scale theory of brain function by Gerald
Edelman, was initially published in 1978, in a book called The Mindful
Brain (MIT Press). It was extended and published in the 1989 book
Neural Darwinism - The Theory of Neuronal Group Selection.

Edelman won the Nobel Prize in 1972 for his work in immunology showing
how the population of lymphocytes capable of binding to a foreign
antigen is increased by differential clonal multiplication following
antigen discovery. Essentially, this proved that the human body is
capable of creating complex adaptive systems as a result of local
events with feedback. Edelman’s interest in selective systems expanded
into the fields of neurobiology and neurophysiology, and in Neural
Darwinism, Edelman puts forth a theory called "neuronal group
selection". It contains three major parts:

1. Anatomical connectivity in the brain occurs via selective
mechanochemical events that take place epigenetically during
development. This creates a diverse primary repertoire by differential
reproduction.

2. Once structural diversity is established anatomically, a second
selective process occurs during postnatal behavioral experience
through epigenetic modifications in the strength of synaptic
connections between neuronal groups. This creates a diverse secondary
repertoire by differential amplification.

3. Reentrant signaling between neuronal groups allows for
spatiotemporal continuity in response to real-world interactions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_Darwinism

(http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/intelligence.html, see illusion of creativity bottom of page)

Just more completely silly stuff along the same lines.

Once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains,
however unlikely, is the truth
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

To keep a reaction going according
to the law of mass action, there
must be a continuous supply of
energy and of selected matter
(molecules) and a continuous
process of elimination of
the reaction products.
- P. Mora
- http://tinyurl.com/px9j6

Trial and error (AKA: generate and test or guess and check) is a
method of problem solving for obtaining knowledge, both propositional
knowledge and know-how.

One selects (or generates) a possible answer, applies it to the
problem and, if it is not successful, selects (or generates) another
possibility that is subsequently tried. The process ends when a
possibility yields a solution.

In some versions of trial and error, the option that is a priori
viewed as the most likely one should be tried first, followed by the
next most likely, and so on until a solution is found, or all the
options are exhausted. In other versions, options are simply tried at
random.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial-and-error

Use the Process of Elimination

Virtually all problems with PCs involve more than one component or
subsystem. The difficulty is usually in figuring out which component
is responsible for the problem.

Using the process of elimination
you can usually narrow the problem
down rather quickly by making small
logical changes and observing the
impact on the problem.

Your objective is to isolate the cause of the problem so you can
correct it.

The key is to make only one
change at a time and then see
if the problem goes away;

...if it does, then whatever you changed is likely responsible for the
problem (although it could be fixing the problem indirectly in some
cases.) If you make more than one change at a time, you cannot readily
discern which change was responsible for fixing the problem.

You will want to first check
the most probable sources of
the problem, and also the things
that are easiest to change.

[For example]: if you are having a problem with your disk drive being
recognized, it's a lot easier and cheaper to explore things like
double-checking jumpers and connections or replacing the interface
cable, than it is to try replacing the drive itself. That is something
you'd only do after you had eliminated all the other possibilities (or
if the evidence implicated the hard disk directly).

Here's a simple example. Let's suppose one morning your PC will not
turn on. You hit the switch and nothing happens. There could be many
different possible causes for this problem: the power to the house
could be out; there could be a malfunction in the wall socket; the
surge suppressor that the system is plugged into might have blown; the
electrical cord may be loose; the power supply could be damaged. To
figure out what is going on you need to eliminate these variables by
making small changes and seeing what happens. For example:

Change the wall socket you are using. If the PC now boots, you have
isolated the cause to the electrical wiring in the house.
If the problem persists, examine the surge suppressor. Change it, or
temporarily bypass it and plug the PC into the wall directly. If it
now works, the surge suppressor is the problem.

If the problem still isn't fixed, try changing the power cord.

If the problem persists still, you may then have to open up the box
and look at the power supply unit to see if it might need replacing.

Realize that the key here is making these changes one at a time. If
you approach this problem by changing the wall socket you use,
bypassing the surge suppressor, and changing the power cord all at
once, your problem may go away but how will you know what caused it?

http://www.pcguide.com/ts/gen/diagElimination-c.html

Football Manager logo competition shortlist is published – winner to
be found by process of elimination over the next 14 days. ...Visitors
to each of these sites will be asked to vote for their favourite logo,
with the least popular being eliminated as the days unfold.

http://forums.ic-games.co.uk/showthread.php?t=325

I would suggest that, for example, you do some research on, for
example, Einstein, and the number of false starts and numerous errors
he made from 1907 to 1915 in obtaining the General Theory Of Relativity..

Irrelevant to how many inventions happened nothing like that. Most obviously with the Wright Bros and Parkes.

Most ideas by experts and novices alike, are worthless.

Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

Its that simple really.

Just because you proclaim that doesnt make it so.

 

[Don Bowey]

On 8/5/08 9:30 PM, in article
86a792d1-e2bc-4663-b73c-80ae06085316@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com, "Bret
Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Now I need a way to house train 'em by the dozen.

This is working out better than the sabotage in _Confederacy of
Dunces_.


Bret Cahill

You seem to have a lot of fun commenting on your own posts. Do you grin and
drool while doing it?

 

[Bret Cahill]

Now I need a way to house train 'em by the dozen.

This is working out better than the sabotage in _Confederacy of
Dunces_.


Bret Cahill

 

[Immortalist]

reams of even more irrelevant shit that has absolutely nothing to with what was being discussed flushed where it
belongs

Some science is like some creative methods in other areas of life,
while not all scientific discovery is creative. The idea is that there
is a plural field of items and then method is applied and some are
eliminated. Just like in evolution.

When you said

New ideas are nothing like random variations.

that is taken to mean that "no ideas are ideas that are absolutely
ever in any way similar to random variations" and this would first off
imply omniscience by you since all ideas have not been thought or had
yet, but here you are making predictions like you cannot be wrong.
That be a no no in logic. In the second place much research has been
done when scientists set back and let their minds wander and the
solution is selected out from the noise.

Therefore it is not the case that the positions I offered "has
absolutely nothing to with what was being discussed" and consequently
you have been shown to be wrong and in error.

....the growth of our knowledge is the result
of a process closely resembling what Darwin
called 'natural selection'; that is, the
natural selection of hypotheses...
--Karl Popper

Popper started with the old idea that knowledge grows by trial and
error, or in more learned terms, by conjecture and refutation. He
generalised this theory to encompass all forms of learning and problem-
solving, including the evolution of life on earth. On his account
every organism, from the amoeba to Einstein, is constantly engaged in
problem solving. In the plant and animal world this involves the
production of new reactions, new organs, new forms of life. For
humans it involves the production of new ideas. When these forms of
life or theories appear they confront selective pressures. These may
come from the biological environment or from competing forms of life.
Ideas meet the competition of alternative theories, critical arguments
and experimental tests.

The central motif of Popper's evolutionary epistemology is the four-
step problem-solving schema:

P ---> TS ---> EE ---> P

The starting point is a problem, which evokes tentative solutions.
These are subjected to the process of error elimination by way of
critical discussion and experimental testing. In the course of these
activities new problems emerge.

http://www.the-rathouse.com/poptheoryknow.html

 

[Immortalist]

On Aug 5, 10:21 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Some science is like some creative methods in other areas of life,

Very little of it is in fact.

You concession hardily accepted that at least some science involve
creative methods.

while not all scientific discovery is creative.

Not much of it is in fact.

At least you can admit you were wrong when you perceived that you
were, by accepting that "some" is more appropriate than "all" in the
stated case against you.

The idea is that there is a plural field of items and
then method is applied and some are eliminated.

Thats nothing like what the fool claimed.

But you claimed that;

Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.

Just like in evolution.

Nope, not on the generation of the items it isnt.

So your making some claim about all scientists and researchers and
what they do every time they get ideas?

When you said
New ideas are nothing like random variations.
that is taken to mean that "no ideas are ideas that are
absolutely ever in any way similar to random variations"

I never ever said anything like that.

Then lets see a clear statement of what you mean when you say;

Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.

and this would first off imply omniscience by you
since all ideas have not been thought or had yet,

Wrong again.

If you mean that it is at all times in the past and future the case
that "Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works"
then that would imply omniscience.

In science, a theory is an explanation. Evolution is a theory, just
like gravitation. Gravity is not a law of nature but an explaination
of observations. If you drop something, it's going to fall. That's an
observation: unsupported things fall. But you explain that observation
with the theory of gravity, which is that the mass of what whatever it
is you dropped, a pencil or a pen or something, is attracted by the
mass...it's really a theory of gravity? But remember, a theory is an
explanation.

but here you are making predictions like you cannot be wrong.

And again.

Then you meant to quantify your contention; Darwinian random variation
is [mostly] nothing like how the brain works, but may sometimes [is]
like how the brain works?

That be a no no in logic.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Please explain? It appears you quantified your inductive theory about
randomness and the brain as always being a particular way.

In the second place much research has been done when scientists set back
and let their minds wander and the solution is selected out from the noise.

Thats again nothing like what that fool claimed either.

Oh, but I was responding to your contention about the brain, not his
position.

And it isnt from the noise either.

If you try and define "noise" in a way I didn't mean it, you would
verge onto a straw man, but more likely you would commit the "four
term fallacy" which would be an attempt to equivocate me;

Fallacy of four terms

The fallacy of four terms (Latin: quaternio terminorum) is the logical
fallacy that occurs when a categorical syllogism has four terms.

Valid categorical syllogisms always have three terms:

Major premise: All fish have fins.
Minor premise: All goldfish are fish.
Conclusion: All goldfish have fins.

Here, the three terms are: "goldfish," "fish," and "fins."

Using four terms invalidates the syllogism:

Major premise: All fish have fins.
Minor premise: All goldfish are fish.
Conclusion: All humans have fins.

The premises don't connect "humans" with "fins", so the reasoning is
invalid. Notice that there are four terms: "fish", "fins", "goldfish"
and "humans". Two premises aren't enough to connect four different
terms, since in order to establish connection, there must be one term
common to both premises.

In everyday reasoning, the fallacy of four terms occurs most
frequently by equivocation: using the same word or phrase but with a
different meaning each time, creating a fourth term even though only
three distinct words are used:

Major premise: Nothing is better
than complete happiness.
Minor premise: A ham sandwich is
better than nothing.
Conclusion: A ham sandwich is better
than complete happiness.

The fallacy of four terms is a syllogistic fallacy. Types of syllogism
to which it applies include statistical syllogism, hypothetical
syllogism and categorical syllogism, all of which must have exactly
three terms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_four_terms
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/four_fall.html

Therefore it is not the case that the positions I offered
"has absolutely nothing to with what was being discussed"

Wrong again.

My position remain sustained if you cannot refute my position on the
relevance of my comments. Therefore it is not the case that the
positions I offered "has absolutely nothing to with what was being
discussed"

and consequently you have been shown to be wrong and in error.

Just more of your desperate drug crazed wanking.

Even if it was "desperate drug crazed wanking" which it was not you
would be like one who attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the
person making the claim is making it simply out of circumstances,
substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the
person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.)
instead of and in place of the truth or falsity of the claim being
made. But your papa should have taught you that a person's interests
and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim
being made, even if a person's interests will provide them with
motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their
own, he should have made it clear to you that it is also the case that
a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do
not affect the truth or falsity of the claim.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html

...the growth of our knowledge is the result of a process
closely resembling what Darwin called 'natural selection';
that is, the natural selection of hypotheses...
--Karl Popper

Thats nothing like that fool claimed either. He
mindlessly rabbitted on about RANDOM VARIATIONS.

Who cares, I was responding to your proposal that;

Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented
in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea
is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument
and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because
merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument
against a claim.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

reams of your mindless rabbitting on about what wasnt even being discussed flushed where it belongs

See above, everything had relevance to your comment;

Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance

 

[Don Bowey]

On 8/5/08 10:55 PM, in article
025e4fea-a7e0-49f8-ba26-5990ade21299@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com, "Bret
Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Now I need a way to house train 'em by the dozen.

This is working out better than the sabotage in _Confederacy of
Dunces_.

Bret Cahill

You seem to have a lot of fun commenting on your own posts.

It ain't like you are bright enough to have a response.

Care to try again?

Sure. While you're commenting to one of your own posts, do you grin and
drool while doing it?

Bret Cahill

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 05:15:01 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net>
wrote:

On 8/5/08 10:55 PM, in article
025e4fea-a7e0-49f8-ba26-5990ade21299@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com, "Bret
Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Now I need a way to house train 'em by the dozen.

This is working out better than the sabotage in _Confederacy of
Dunces_.

Bret Cahill

You seem to have a lot of fun commenting on your own posts.

It ain't like you are bright enough to have a response.

Care to try again?

Sure. While you're commenting to one of your own posts, do you grin and
drool while doing it?

---
I think it's probably a little farther south than that.

JF

 

[ZerkonX]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 03:38:53 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

Just a pathetic wanker, actually.

Why do you feed it?

 

[zzbunker@netscape.net]

On Aug 5, 12:44 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

Which project?
All of them, since they are likely all as poorly presented as the one I
specifically had in mind

How do you know with seeing them?

Are you suggesting that great inventors sometimes don't occasionally
have bad ideas?  To the contrary, the bad ideas of most successful
inventors greatly out number the good ideas.

Edison went through 10,000 bad ideas before getting a light bulb.

Well, it doesn't how matter true how 19th Century science is,
Since the morons in sci,energy need reminding daily that,
masers, cell phones,, CD, Bose, DVD+RW, HDTV, PV Cells,
Microcomputers,
parallel processors, fiber optics, drones, GPS, Wnd Energy, bio-
diesel, cruise missiles,
USB, lasers, and ROBOTS were all invented since Edison DIDN''T
invent light, power, science,
or ELECTRONICS.

Successful inventors just try so many things they can select and
choose the good ones.

You have really demonstrated you are ignorant of the design process.

And we haven't even gotten to the part where you dodge the question
about all _your_ inventions and patent numbers.

Yup, that's where this is heading.  Another house training.

Apparently puppy training is in big demand around here.

Bret Cahill

"There are no bad ideas."

-- the Governator

 

[Bret Cahill]

Now I need a way to house train 'em by the dozen.

This is working out better than the sabotage in _Confederacy of
Dunces_.

Bret Cahill

You seem to have a lot of fun commenting on your own posts.

It ain't like you are bright enough to have a response.

Care to try again?

Sure.

Now that you are in full issue dodging mode, it's newspaper time:

Which project?

All of them, since they are likely all as poorly presented as the one I
specifically had in mind

Edison went through 10,000 bad ideas before getting a light bulb.

Are you suggesting all of Edison's ideas were bad?

You have really demonstrated you are ignorant of the design process.

And we haven't even gotten to the part where you dodge the question
about all _your_ inventions and patent numbers.

Yup, that's where this is heading. Another house training.

Apparently puppy training is in big demand around here.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

I think it's probably a little farther south than that.

What? No "LOL?" Does this mean you've been weaned away from yer
favorite acronym?

Anyway we're still settin' on the edges of our chairs waiting for all
them patent numbers.

Anyone who suggests he has a patent _better_ have a number or everyone
on newsgroups will know you are, not only a fraud but a rather stupid
one at that.

You already told us you were obese, something anyone could have
deduced from your idle chatter.

Now we want them patent numbers. Heck, even a provisional application
number will do.

Don't be coy.


Bret Cahill

 

[zzbunker@netscape.net]

On Aug 6, 11:59 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

Yup.

Nope.

Wrong as usual.

Well, the only thing you really say with qunatum idiots
is go play with the plasma somewhere else, and let people
who understand science do the science.

 

[Bret Cahill]

Yup.

Nope.

Wrong as usual.

ďż˝ Well, the only thing you really say with qunatum idiots
ďż˝ is go play with the plasma somewhere else, and let people
ďż˝ who understand science do the science.

Obviously you don't know how to discourse with one of the most
profoundly brilliant thoughtful thinkers on the planet.

 

[Bret Cahill]

e.g. I belive that its a fact that of the order of 90% of new products
introduced, fail so... 90%, by my book is detrimental

If you consider a patented invention a "new" product then over 99.9%
fail.


Bret Cahill


"Nature is extremely wasteful."

-- Nietzsche (or someone)

 

[Immortalist]

On Aug 6, 12:14 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote

when you perceived that you were, by accepting that "some"
is more appropriate than "all" in the stated case against you.

More of your mindless wanking.

Then you are requesting that the quantification remain vague? No, I
won't allow it, as long as you don't reveal how often...

Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.

....your position remains in check, if not checkmate.

The idea is that there is a plural field of items and
then method is applied and some are eliminated.
Thats nothing like what the fool claimed.

But you claimed that;
Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.
Just like in evolution.

Nope, not on the generation of the items it isnt.
So your making some claim about all scientists and
researchers and what they do every time they get ideas?

Nope. Just pissing on his stupid claim from a great height.

When you said
New ideas are nothing like random variations.
that is taken to mean that "no ideas are ideas that are
absolutely ever in any way similar to random variations"
I never ever said anything like that.
Then lets see a clear statement of what you mean when you say;
Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.

You've ripped that from its context. The original was completely clear.

Whatever the context the proposition refers to either "some" or "all"
times that evolution is similar to brain processes or not.

and this would first off imply omniscience by you
since all ideas have not been thought or had yet,
Wrong again.
If you mean that it is at all times in the past and future the case
that "Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works"

Nope, never ever said anything like that either.

But then your not willing to reformulate what you said in clear words,
something fishy about that position, something dishonest.