MrIntelligentDesign
Posts: 405 Joined: Sep. 2015
|
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,08:45) | [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,08:25] I think you have the actual motivational and causal chains inverted here. You have confidence that you are right so you've written books. You assert that you are doing science, and that you have written books, thus you must be doing science. Funny, all of that is nothing more than assuming your conclusions and special pleading. The books were all self-published, right? No one but you has a stake of any sort in this -- you're simply convinced, for no apparent reason, that you have done something "special" and therefore, you've done something special. Anyone who doesn't agree just doesn't understand that it's special.
Quote | That is why, no matter what you say that I'm wrong if you cannot give me a new and real definition/explanation of intelligence that is too different from mine, I will never yield nor believe you. |
Classic crank mistake. I do not have to provide something new to demonstrate that what you have is a failure. When a surgeon removes a tumor, no one asks what he's going to replace it with. Your work is a tumor on human knowledge, on science, and a blot on the internet. Quote | You said that I'm wrong and you smashed my new explanation of intelligence and its definition? Huh?! If that is correct, where is your basis or replacement for the correct one? |
I don't have to replace it, as noted above. I've pointed out that your "definition" doesn't work. Part of why it fails in its proper purpose is that it does not and cannot unambiguously define candidate sets of entities, processes, and/or events that would qualify. Your abuse of the terms symmetry/asymmetry are a small part of the problem. All of this could at least be improved if you were to at least grapple with the counters we have variously raised in objection to your nonsense. But instead of analyzing and arguing the points, you pout and posture that we "don't understand", that we somehow fail to appreciate your genius. You don't get it -- we don't accept that you are a genius, we don't accept that your work has merits. And we've given you reasons, logic, and evidence to back up our rejection. Your job at that point is to grapple with the counters and address them. If you think people don't understand, well, that's your problem, not theirs. Work to better explain your position. Verify whether they might, in fact, understand your position quite well, and reject it. Come to understand why, regardless of whether you believe or accept their rejection of your 'work'. Quote | You cannot simply say that I am wrong and yet you did not give me replacement for the topic. Thus, you are giving me MORE CONFIDENCE and TRUST to myself as real and professional scientist, and you, you are just a bunch of deluded follower of ToE. |
Again, that's not how it works. That's not science, that's paranoid delusional behavior. No one needs to replace something that shouldn't have existed in the first place. Least of all when showing, with evidence, examples, logic, and reason why it shouldn't have existed in the first place. A nullity is better than what you have produced. This is not a rare opinion. You simply assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a 'deluded follower of ToE', yet you have precious little evidence to back that up. You're a paranoid delusional little fool whose fallback plan is always to attack those who reject your nonsense as nonsense, rather than simply worshipfully adoring your genius.
Quote | Thus, don't blame me if I claim that I have science and explanation since I have already all replacements for your old explanations... |
And yet again, that is not how science works. You are, in effect, providing an "explanation" that fails for a phenomenon you have a name for but no way to identify. You certainly have provided nothing that would let anyone else repeat any of your procedures to confirm or disconfirm your results. That's basic remedial science -- and you're failing at it.
No one needs anything to 'replace' your effluent to identify that it is unwanted waste. Its removal suffices.
Just for laughs, let's say someone actually both understood and agreed with your notions. What would they then proceed to do that is not already being done? What difference, concretely and specifically, would acceptance of your notions make? |
You did not even get it!
The reason why Creationism was out of schools and in science because we have now the deluded evolution as replacement in science. Agreed?
Now, the deluded evolution must also go BUT we need replacement for that which is better. Complexity was offered by old ID but it was rejected.
Now, here come me. And that is my new discoveries. They replaced everything that ToE had made and messed.
BUT, you are simply saying that I'm wrong in my discoveries of real intelligence, therefore I'm wrong is simply illogical and unrealistic. Why? Since where did you base your correct and true "intelligence" if you think that my "intelligence" is wrong?
If 1 + 4 = is 5 as true and correct, then, 1 + 4 = 7 is wrong since we cannot replace the 1 + 4 =5. Thus, I need replacement for my new discoveries if you think I'm wrong since I will also be asking you your basis of your accusation/conclusion that I was wrong.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just for laughs, let's say someone actually both understood and agreed with your notions. What would they then proceed to do that is not already being done? What difference, concretely and specifically, would acceptance of your notions make? ME: They should show that intelligence and non-intelligence are the same. Or show that intellen and naturen are the same.
The difference? The whole science will change and revolutionize. All printing presses will be very busy printing new books. The world will change.
I will become famous and rich... And,
|