RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (397) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
k.e..



Posts: 2882
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,07:49   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,07:34)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 20 2012,17:00)
   
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 20 2012,14:41)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,14:34)
         
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,16:18)
             
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,14:14)
You're still just trying to get out of having to know what you are talking about.

If you have a better model and theory to explain "intelligent cause" then present it. Otherwise, your question is scientifically irrelevant.

No-one has to explain "intelligent cause" until you've shown that it exists, Gary.  You haven't done that.

Maybe this one might jog your memory:


https://sites.google.com/site.......ion.GIF

Gary, according to the image you posted, you're apparently claiming that intelligent cause comes into play somewhere between the behavior of matter system and the molecular intelligence system. You go from behavioral cause to intelligent cause. What exactly happens at the point where behavioral cause changes to intelligent cause and what causes that change? Also, what, if anything, causes the behavior of matter?


The theory explains "behavior of matter" as:
     
Quote
Behavior of matter is produced by electromagnetic force created atomic bonds and intermolecular interactions (covalent, polar covalent, van der Waals polar force, ionic, metallic, hydrogen) and follows the “laws of physics”. This is covered by Atomic Theory, which describes the atoms in the model’s particle system environment. Behavior of matter can only respond to exteroceptive stimuli one way, such as bonding with another molecule or not, therefore has two of four requirements for intelligence (but does not by itself qualify as intelligence). It is not possible to rule out intelligence at this behavior level, but with no scientific evidence existing for this the behavior of matter is assumed to not require intelligence to produce intelligence, the origin of intelligent life.

The "behavior" of matter does not need to be "intelligent". When a behavior is intelligent we have "intelligent behavior" which is normally just called "intelligent".

Since the top level "Behavior" of Matter does not qualify as intelligent (but cannot be ruled out) the first causation event is most appropriately "Behavioral Cause" of the Molecular Intelligence. It would be wrong to call it "Intelligent Cause" and "Unintelligent Cause" is incorrect due to not being able to rule that out. Scientific logic here finds only one logical naming convention.

Since Molecular Intelligence does qualify as intelligence, the second causation event is "Intelligent Cause" of Cellular Intelligence. Scientific logic finds only one logical naming convention, to use thereafter.

Because of going from particle-system to molecular intelligence being aBioGenesis just making the first (Behavioral) Cause event happen would be astonishing. You then soon have replicating cells. There would then be a good chance that (technology willing) it can keep going past there to next produce the first Intelligent Cause event, to have cells swimming around. There would then be a great chance it can on its own achieve the next Intelligent Cause event, producing multicellularity.

I need to add: Due to the logic/terminology of a reciprocal causation model like this only fitting together one way, for anyone on any side of the issue, not getting it right leads to an avalanche of illogic that only gets worse with time. As I earlier mentioned with Creation Science, one thing leads to another then the conclusion is that as an intelligence the Creator/God was somehow born knowing nothing at all, the Greek/Roman God system. For scientists who think they have it all figured out already they are soon lost in unscientific territory talking about such things as “intelligent molecules” while I explain the very basics of cognitive science, as it applies to genetics.

The logic fits together in a way that makes there no scientific way out of having to accept the theory and its terminology.

....erm Gary you are appear to be classically suffering from Hypomania, get help.

No one here is interested in your shit ....sorry.

ETR: One "is".

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
  11894 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (397) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]