NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 18 2015,03:09) | | Quote (dazz @ Oct. 17 2015,20:10) | | Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 18 2015,02:54) | | So, you are forcing us to accept the fact that it is possible for rocks and stones to make PC since they are members/parts of nature, thus, they are all natural processes and phenomenon, is that what you are trying to tell me? |
No, it's you who is incapable of thinking logically. I said that intelligence is natural, that doesn't mean that every natural entity is intelligent. It's basic logic: google "Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens" |
Then, you agreed to me that "intelligence" is part of nature and yet some natural entity or members or parts are doing intelligence and non-intelligence, thus, we need categorization
So, I caught you through your own mouth!
Then, why don't you support me if you believe/accept that intelligence is part of nature since that was my claim!
LOL!
You are really ...oh my goodness... |
You really don't make any effort to understand what your challengers are actually saying, do you?
You are the one who has been drawing a sharp distinction between intelligence and nature. You have gone so far as to say they are at opposite extremes and shall never meet.
This is incredibly wrong-headed.
It also does not support your new claim that intelligence is part of nature. Nice to see you acknowledge that, although it is flagrantly dishonest to pretend you've been claiming that all along. You haven't, as can be seen by even a casual review of your posts here.
Of course we need categorization. But we are already able to categorize events, processes, and/or entities as intelligent or not, and to do so correctly, at least for the most part.
Your "new discoveries" are neither the basis of how we actually do so categorize events, processes, and/or entities nor does it offer any improvement in our understanding of or ability to perform such categorizations.
Thus, what you have is useless, in large part because it is wrong.
We have shown that we are better able to categorize, and justify our categorizations, than you are with your ad hoc, post hoc, "symmetry/asymmetry" counting 'method'.
You are being incredibly dishonest.
Please post a specific quote and link to a previous post of yours that claims that intelligence is part of nature.
Failure to do so will further support, indeed, will prove, that you are dishonest, arguing in bad faith, and should be ridiculed or ignored.
|
