NoName
Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013
|
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 23 2014,22:07) | ... You find out what it is to be Bob by explaining to me how to model the systems mentioned in the information I just provided, and how to program "intelligent cause" as well. Excuses for not having a serious model for everyone to test makes you him, you have zilch. Just all talk, no science action. |
To be precise, which, of course, always matters in doing actual science, you have provided no information whatsoever. You have provided a link to information other people have provided. You have simultaneously displayed a complete failure to comprehend that information and how it relates, or fails to relate, to your own delusions.
As to "intelligent cause", well, there's a bit of a problem. From your own work, it is impossible to determine what is and what is not a case of "intelligent cause". Based on your work, the phrase is strictly meaningless. You insist that molecules learn, that the behavior of molecules is due to "intelligent cause". You have been repeatedly challenged to show anything at all about any molecular behavior whatsoever that is not explained by the laws of physics and chemistry. Your response has been complete silence. You have been asked to clarify whether acts typically considered to be instances of "intelligent cause", such as planning a shopping trip or composing a melody or recognizing a melody when presented with it transposed and played at a different temp on a different instrument, are explained under your "theory". These are problematic given that your "theory" requires direct sensory addressing of memory and direct memory to control of motor function connections. Neither of these are present in any of the example cases commonly taken to be cases "intelligent cause". Once again, your response to these questions has been complete and utter silence.
So, Gary, the problem with asking someone else to explain how to 'program "intelligent cause"' cannot be answered because no one, least of all you, can identify what the heck you mean by the phrase, what aspects of reality are included, what are excluded, and what the nature of the systems connections involved might be. Worse, you compound your failures by insisting that any explanation be in the form of 'how to program' the phenomenon. How do you propose we 'program' the interaction of hydrogen and oxygen to form water, the behavior of water at its triple point, or the fact that in sufficient aggregate, water is wet? None of these things are susceptible to explanation by programming nor is it clear that any programming-type construct would in any way count as an explanation. In fact, the explanation would have to precede the programming.
Finally, let us once again note your profound failure of ethics, particularly scientific ethics, in having lied about your work and its evidential foundations, or, more precisely, the complete lack thereof, along with your false claims that no one has presented counter evidence. You compound the ethical failure by then proceeding to ignore the corrections of these blatant falsehoods that have been provided. These are the behavior marks of a scientific fraud. In your case, given your demonstrated dishonesty and ineptitude, it seems that they are also marks of one who aspires to be a scientific fraud but can't muster the intellectual pre-requisites. Your work fails to rise to the level of scientific fraud. It is an anti-scientific blunder at best.
|