Joined: June 2007
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 01 2012,21:42)|
|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?
"Why is this not good enough for you?"
Because it doesn't do any of the shit i asked you about, does it?
You say the point of your little model is
|to be made as simple as possible to reduce all that is happening in a complex biological circuit of an intelligent living thing to what is most important to understand about the way self-learning intelligence works|
So, the point is to reduce all of the details? Most important to who? what is the difference between "self-learning intelligence" and whatever other kinds of intelligence or learning you have come up with? when i have word salad i like some dressing, luv
|the program provides a precise and testable operational definition for "intelligence"|
but it turns out that you mean "intelligence as understood by your model" and not as "intelligence" as experienced by organisms. right?
many processes understood to be supervenient upon intelligent actors show brownian motion. but that is most certainly an aside
|provides a precise, testable and scientifically useful operational definition for "intelligent cause"|
why do you say this definition is useful or operational? who would care about this?
|this model also provides insight into the origin of life, intelligence and mechanisms that produces new species|
so you say, but i think i probably speak for a majority when I say "Bullshit son". if it does "provide" these "insights" then you ain't provided that shit here. here's your chance!
since there doesn't seem to be any genetic analysis or modeling here, how can you claim (well, and how can you claim and expect us not to horselaugh you from the planet) that your "model" showed that human speciation "was found to be systematically the primary result of good-guess chromosome speciation from fusion of two ancestral chromosomes". Be honest, you ain't got shit to say about that do you. Well, other than "BUT JESUS SAID"
|how does falsification change even a single word of it|
well, if you want to pretend like your model is all that matters, and not reality, then you go ahead and don't worry about how well your model claims are supported by reality. i suspect you have already worn a furrow around the perimeter of this psychological defensework.
Edited by Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 02 2012,17:51
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK
Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG
the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat
I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles