N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 30 2014,19:28) | | Quote (Texas Teach @ June 30 2014,19:12) | | Quote (didymos @ June 30 2014,18:52) | | Dude, he TOLD you he was trolling you, and you STILL got trolled. Amazing. Simply amazing. |
This is the sooper-genius who is revolutionizing science. Bow down before his dizzying intellect. |
Why are you not outraged by this "Multiscale interactions produce emergent phenomena" teething biscuit into ID "pseudoscience" not having been retracted and erased from the internet by now? |
Biology and biochemistry have always found ubiquitous instances of cause and effect going up and down the chain of molecules, genomes, networks, cells, organs, and organisms, and are not short of emergent phenomena. That's not pseudoscience. Emergence usually involves complex causation, and often involves interplay between phenomena or processes operating at very different scales (I like the example of small corals growing up to become a shoal, and finally emerging as an island as interactions with wave base and tides increase). When investigating either intelligence or consciousness, science is necessarily going to have a methodological expectation that they emerged naturally, from lower levels, via complex causation. None of that is pseudoscience, and none of that supports your ideas.
We can somewhat metaphorically refer to causation going up and down the chain as information passing from one level to the next. We can even more metaphorically refer to things like "learning by genomes". However, turning around and saying "information and learning, therefore intelligence" leaves us with intelligence being used in a way that has no recognizable connection to any usual understanding of the word. The "new" part of your ideas involves firstly slapping the word "intelligence" on everything up and down that chain, without actually redefining intelligence in a way that allows it to be measured and without demonstrating that "intelligence" can actually cause any of the things that you assert, and then secondly claiming that "because everything is intelligence, everything must be design".
Your appeal to intelligence in action is unscientific and unsupportable (no good operational definitions, no quantitative data, and no testing regarding the controversial aspects of your claims; no testable hypotheses; no ground-truthing of your model; your model neither addresses molecular and cellular levels nor populations, reproduction, and inheritance). Your assertion of design is even worse. It does not align with what the IDists mean by intelligent design. From a scientific perspective emergence is the antithesis of a design process. We can get around that metaphorically ("A coherent plan finally emerged from the Design Department"), but that doesn't permit either a scientific explanation where cellls might design the formation of organs or vice versa, or where a supernatural agent designs all of life.
Add to all this the problems that you are overflowing with wrong facts, wrongly used terms, unsupported assertions, and misunderstandings and misrepresentations of scientific conclusions, and then throw in the problem that everything you write is a morass of incoherent and incomprehensible English.
|
