Joined: Jan. 2006
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,22:26)|
|Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 21 2012,21:42)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,21:36)|
|Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 21 2012,21:19)|
|I'm sorry Gary, but you are simply dishonest. There is no commonality between the work of Prof. Zhang and your VB script other than the phrase "molecular intelligence" which you both use to mean very different things.|
Prove it by showing their model which explains "molecular intelligence" in context with "behavior of matter", "cellular intelligence" and "multicellular intelligence" with the algorithm/circuit you are suggesting exists at that site.
You will find none, because they do not write theory to unify such scientific concepts. That's what the Theory of Intelligent Design is for.
Let me get this straight - *I* have to prove that your model is like his? It isn't. You went fishing for support, linked to something you didn't understand and got caught with your pants down, bullshitter Gary.
This discussion requires you or someone else to show where Professor Zhang even attempts to explain the similarities between all known levels of intelligence and behavior of matter. Without that you are just saying they don't agree, without ever producing evidence to know either way. You pretend that their references for their claims disagrees with what the theory states even when there is no conflict at all, in fact that is why I found their site such a resource.
Okay bullshitter Gary, welcome to science.
I see you're trying this:
but we only really accept this:
|Holder of the burden|
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed". This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.
If *you* think they are related then *you* must prove it. Not by highlighting equivocal phrases, or that "he uses words, I use words" but a deep level of coherence in concepts.
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine