NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (NoName @ April 23 2016,16:54) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2016,16:41) | | Quote (N.Wells @ April 23 2016,15:04) | | Quote | | You are now saying that the molecular level genetics of living things have no influence at all over their phenotype. Your conclusion is just plain nuts. But that's what you get for embracing Methodological Naturalism, instead of science. |
You are once again delusional. Of course genetics have immense (but not quite total) control over phenotypes, and of course genes are molecular. I have not said anything that would lead a sane person to think otherwise. YOU are making ridiculous claims about molecular intelligence that YOU have not supported. |
Semantics arguments aside, I have a testable computer model that makes fascinating predictions in regards to the origin of life, species, etc., and writing a theory of operation to explain how it works is a standard practice I am obligated to follow.
This is NOT something for you or others to decide. It is scientifically absurd to argue that the theory of operation for a working model (that even demonstrates multicellular level curiosity) is not a theory. But I can understand why you would need to invent your own rules, in order to make such absurd claims. |
The biggest problem is that your model is not a model of anything.
As such, any results it produces are effectively meaningless.
Elements of your model, such as the essentially omniscient spatial model are contradicted by well-known facts.
Your confusion over what does and does not count as 'learning' is yet another fatal flaw.
The circularity embedded within your "theory" renders said "theory" useless. Renders it, in fact, not a theory at all.
This is not a matter of 'semantics' in the derisive sense in which you toss the term around.
Words have meaning(s). Your usage violates the standard meanings of the term. There is no intelligence at the level of atoms and molecules. Their interactions are strictly law-governed, entirely a matter of physics and thermodynamics. Neither atoms nor molecules 'guess' nor have 'confidence factors' or 'confidence evaluations'. Nor do they have any proper analog to those things.
Intelligence is a phenomenon associated with complex assemblages of molecules, organized as systems, generally as systems within systems within systems...within systems.
Another way to look at this is if everything is 'intelligent' then the word becomes meaningless. It becomes unable to distinguish or differentiate entities, processes, or events generally considered to be intelligent or to require intelligence.
It is emphatically not up to you to declare your 'model' nor your 'theory' nor your "results" satisfactory or correct. That's quite literally everyone else's job.
It is telling that after nearly a decade of pushing your swill around, you've managed to convince no one.
That marks a significant failure of your claims.
As in 'total defeat'.
It doesn't matter what you think about it.
It is demonstrably wrong, inadequate, and phantasmagorical. |
And we're right back to where we were over a week ago.
You've added nothing to the discussion but pitiful attempts to distract from your utter failure.
Support your claims or stop making them.
|
