N.Wells
Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 19 2015,03:26) | Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 18 2015,22:00) | Quote | So, you are stuck with a question of the origin of the big IA. |
You have yet to demonstrate that there is one. So, we aren't stuck with anything. Also, be careful that you don't assume your conclusions as you move ahead on this.
Quote | I've already told you before that intelligence predicts that in every existence of X, there is always a pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. I think that I've alreday told you that. | Yes, you have, but you are wrong. Intelligence has nothing to do with asymmetry, or even with a >1.5 correspondence between problems and solutions.
Quote | Thus, if we use the asymmetrical phenomenon to the origin of existence of universe/existence, we can see that
non-existence:existence...an asymmetrical...
But so that existence could exist, it requires non-existence..but there will be no existence if there is no intelligence. But there will be no intelligence if there is no IA, thus, intelligence predicts that this big IA is uncreated..
Is that hard to understand? |
Well, it's word-salad that has no meaning for anyone except you. It's a construct of illogic with no foundation.
Quote | I don't have ego. It was you and the supporters of ToE that have full of ego. I am just claiming that I have the best science since I discovered the real intelligence. ............. Since you have no replacement for my new discovery, then, I am heading to the Hall of Fame...and I will wait my time... | I think you've said everything that needs to be said on that one. |
Thank you for your post. BUT in the other post that you had made, you had claimed there are distinctions of instinct/natural to complex behaviors to intelligence.
Please, I am asking you math
(19) for intelligence
(2) for instinct
(3) for more complex behaviors...
since these three were your claims!
They are not obviously the same, thus, we need to classify and categorize them..and let us compare that to my new discoveries...
Don't let me guess, let me compute and compare!
I'll wait for your reply...let us make science... |
Asked and answered already.
Proportion of behavior that is instinct versus more complex behavior = % that is preprogrammed, innate, inborn, inflexible and unalterable, and not gained from learning, experience, or thinking things out.
Examples of a test showing 100% instinct versus a much lower %: Take a weaver bird egg, hatch it in an incubator, raise it in isolation, allow it access to nesting materials, and it will build a complex nest identical to all the nests built by other members of its species, without ever having seen one before. (Weaver birds build distinctive and complex snake-proof nests that are characteristically different for each species.)
On the other hand, jackdaws have an instinct to build a nest (ones raised in isolation give it a go), but even ones that grew up in a nest do poorly the first time they try it, although they rapidly get better with experience, learning from trial and error.
Intelligence quotient for humans, age adjusted: [Test score for individual - mean of scores for that age cohort] / standard deviation of scores for that cohort
Encephalization quotient comparing brains across species: Brain mass / body size This can be adjusted for calculating volumes of different portions of the brain, e.g we can see which parts of the brain were important to Archaeopteryx and early birds, and how those portions expanded during the evolution of birds. http://www.nature.com/nature.....24.html http://www.livescience.com/38581-d....on.html Obviously, brain size does not equate in any simple way to brain complexity or to intelligence, but it turns out that lots of research has determined that intelligence is a truly complicated subject that is NOT reducible to simplistic schemes, such as yours. However, on the whole, small brains = not able to do much with them.
And just to show that human ancestors gradually increased in brain size http://static.businessinsider.com/image......age.jpg
|