Joined: June 2006
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 01 2012,20:42)|
|Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 01 2012,18:08)|
|for example, you have never told us what specifically your bad-ass theory predicts. is there anything about your theory that is falsifiable? testable? can you state this clearly?|
Why is this not good enough for you?
Are you saying that you do not have the scientific ability to figure out what that clearly indicates? How does falsification change even a single word of it?
That is perhaps the worst written abstract I have ever seen. And I was a TA in the writing lab at university. Come on, Gary, your writing skills aren't even up to a 7th grade level. You might as well pull words out of a bag at random.
Let me try to help. Your abstract (and subsequent writings here) should be closer to something like the following:
|This next generation Intelligence Generator is a simple reduction of a complex biological circuit. The circuit in this case is an insect's compound eye. The Generator will give us an idea of how self-learning intelligence works.|
The program provides a precise and testable definition of "intelligence". Also provided is a precise and testable definition of "intelligent cause".
Using this model we will attempt to show the advantages of a two lobed brain over a single--even much large--lobed brain. In the analysis of this model we will also show important findings in the questions of Origin of Life, Intelligence, and Mechanisms of Speciation.
While this version still has many problems (which were in the original), it has the necessary advantage of being FUCKING CLEARLY STATED!!!.
If you can't see this, Gary, there is no help for you anywhere.
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG
And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin