Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 18 2014,16:02

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 18 2014,16:55)

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 18 2014,14:52)

Quote

It only seems to contain metaphors to those who believe they are entitled to change the scientific terminology required for cognitive science to generalization based metaphors from Darwinian theory, which yield the conclusions you expected, in regards to what is intelligent or not.

Rubbish - you are the one abusing standard terminology

You must have a serious case of swellheadness to believe that you are more of an authority than David Heiserman, Arnold Trehub, designers of IBM Watson, etc..

Like it or not cognitive science requires the terminology that is used, systematics from David Heiserman have for decades been the starting point for more complex cognitive models and the same "confidence" based terminology is in IBM Watson too. I would much rather follow respected experts than be misled by someone who has no experience at all in the field, is just upset because for modeling reality on a computer their theory got dusted by a Theory of Intelligent Design.

Those luminaries are not, most emphatically not, making the absurd, fantasy-driven, delusional claims that you are.
Not a single one.

It is the wildest leap of fantasy for you to assert otherwise.

But let's turn this around -- are you seriously proposing that you know as much, are as capable as, David Heiserman, Arnold Trehub, and the designers of IBM's Watson, etc?
Seriously?
You can barely manage to spell correctly. Your grammar, syntax, and semantics are all, well, brutally fucked up.
Your claims are not founded in evidence, nor are they particularly well supported by the published works of Heiserman, Trehub, Watson's designers, et al.
You have yet to produce a clear and coherent link from the work of any of those gentlemen, and likely ladies as well, to any of your premises, logical leaps, or conclusions.
It is particularly clear with regard to both premises and conclusions. You have those in abundance, but they are starkly unrelated by chains of logic. Worse, they are all based on free-floating delusions of yours and your own misinterpretation of the work of others rather than evidence.
You have not got even so much as a single piece of evidence.
Not one.
No, your software does not count, for reasons we have been over repeatedly.

Epic unwin, Gary.

And we note that you continue to ignore questions and challenges raised against your effluent. Quelle surprise.

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 19 2014,01:18

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 17 2014,19:16)

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 17 2014,01:14)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 16 2014,22:02)

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 16 2014,21:10)

Gary apparently didn't understand Harshman.

I'm not surprised.

I'm the best judge of how well John parallels my thoughts, not you. Stop trying to speak for me.

Quote

Gary Gaulin • 2 days ago

Maybe the problem (getting the expected answer) has something to do with the required fitness function of the Darwinian (Evolutionary Algorithm) model?

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......unction

A fitness function is a particular type of objective function that is used to summarise, as a single figure of merit, how close a given design solution is to achieving the set aims.
In particular, in the fields of genetic programming and genetic algorithms, each design solution is represented as a string of numbers (referred to as a chromosome). After each round of testing, or simulation, the idea is to delete the 'n' worst design solutions, and to breed 'n' new ones from the best design solutions. Each design solution, therefore, needs to be awarded a figure of merit, to indicate how close it came to meeting the overall specification, and this is generated by applying the fitness function to the test, or simulation, results obtained from that solution.

The Darwinian model can be said to have a "Survival of the fittest" built into the way fitness is scored, even though in reality the concept is an overgeneralization.

I seriously found that what is needed to solve this problem is a non-Darwinian model that (as in biology) self-learns at multiple levels. You're otherwise stuck with problematic generalizations that are inherent to the Darwinian model, which becomes a coding nightmare and increasingly less biologically relevant by trying to achieve such complex emergent behaviors any other way. Need to simplify down the problem to an Occam's Razor shaved algorithm, where (as in reality) some get lucky in love, with no "fittest" to attempt to prejudge required. The programming challenge is then the large amount of systems biology, which is now being sorted out in a way that makes it much easier to model living things:

http://www.nanowerk.com/news2......944.php

What John said probably did not help Stephanie at all, but it sure helped make sense of what I have been saying about the generalizations from Darwinian theory causing problems that lead to misconceptions that would be best to not have in the first place.

Gary goes out of his way to confirm that he didn't understand Harshman.

Again, I'm not surprised.

I just mirrored what I said into the NCSE discussion so John will know too:

http://ncse.com/blog.......7014269

All in all I am showing how to bash through a whole of unnecessary complication with the most biologically accurate modeling method that there is, sort of like this:
Peter Gabriel - Sledgehammer

You can be sure I would not agree with John unless I understood where they were coming from. In this case I had something to add to make sense of that in context of ID theory where said "selection" is not a big fuzzy left up to the imagination floating around us or something, it's coming from multiple levels of intelligence, which are becoming easier to model now that there is cell fate code and information to work from such as the "roadmap" mentioned on previous page (showing the pathways to make new neurons including reproduction of entire new populations for brains of offspring). A cell that took the first step towards differentiating into a neuron is more "confident" when sensing they are migrating closer towards where conditions are right to differentiate into one of the possibilities that are left for them to differentiate into. That's what's being shown here:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....edicine

http://www.nanowerk.com/news2......944.php

The ID Lab has a place in the algorithm where the confidence requirement is met using If-Then statements or alternately a logic table. Only need this illustration and a short amount of time to code that into a model, for cellular behavior.

Gary re-confirms that his self-assessment of his comprehension of Harshman would make Dunning and Kruger shake their heads in astonishment.

I'm not surprised.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Nomad

Posts: 311
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 19 2014,06:20

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 18 2014,15:55)

Like it or not cognitive science requires the terminology that is used, systematics from David Heiserman have for decades been the starting point for more complex cognitive models and the same "confidence" based terminology is in IBM Watson too. I would much rather follow respected experts than be misled by someone who has no experience at all in the field, is just upset because for modeling reality on a computer their theory got dusted by a Theory of Intelligent Design.

What sensors does Watson have? How about motors?

You're not following them, you're merely name dropping them.

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 19 2014,06:40

Quote (Nomad @ Aug. 19 2014,07:20)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 18 2014,15:55)

Like it or not cognitive science requires the terminology that is used, systematics from David Heiserman have for decades been the starting point for more complex cognitive models and the same "confidence" based terminology is in IBM Watson too. I would much rather follow respected experts than be misled by someone who has no experience at all in the field, is just upset because for modeling reality on a computer their theory got dusted by a Theory of Intelligent Design.

What sensors does Watson have? How about motors?

You're not following them, you're merely name dropping them.

Tragically, in Gary's delusional little world, 'sensors' == external input == interactions (of any sort) with the "non-self" surround. "Motors" == any form of output == any impact of "self" on the "non-self" external surround.
'Self' and 'non-self' in scare quotes as for Gary those terms boil down to reference to any individuated bit of reality and the sum total of that with respect to which it is individuated. I.e., grains of sand, droplets of water, clouds, atoms, sub-atomic particles, nationalities; the referents of noun-forms generally are "self", everything else with respect to a particular noun is "non-self".

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 19 2014,06:47

Quote (Nomad @ Aug. 19 2014,06:20)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 18 2014,15:55)

Like it or not cognitive science requires the terminology that is used, systematics from David Heiserman have for decades been the starting point for more complex cognitive models and the same "confidence" based terminology is in IBM Watson too. I would much rather follow respected experts than be misled by someone who has no experience at all in the field, is just upset because for modeling reality on a computer their theory got dusted by a Theory of Intelligent Design.

What sensors does Watson have? How about motors?

You're not following them, you're merely name dropping them.

I have other work today. You'll have to do your own homework.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 19 2014,06:57

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 19 2014,07:47)

Quote (Nomad @ Aug. 19 2014,06:20)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 18 2014,15:55)

Like it or not cognitive science requires the terminology that is used, systematics from David Heiserman have for decades been the starting point for more complex cognitive models and the same "confidence" based terminology is in IBM Watson too. I would much rather follow respected experts than be misled by someone who has no experience at all in the field, is just upset because for modeling reality on a computer their theory got dusted by a Theory of Intelligent Design.

What sensors does Watson have? How about motors?

You're not following them, you're merely name dropping them.

I have other work today. You'll have to do your own homework.

If you have time enough to say "I don't have time to answer" then you do, in fact, have time enough to answer.

But we've already seen that you lack the basic honesty and integrity expected of any scientist and so will resort to any behavior necessary to avoid confronting any of the issues raised against your faux-theory.
Once again demonstrating that insofar as one can extract the grounds for prediction from you "theory", you will repeat the same failed behaviors over and over again. IOW, you do not count as 'intelligent' on the grounds and terms of your own output.

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 19 2014,08:01

Gee, Gary, here's a much better diagram than your scribblings.
Can you identify the key element that never appears in any of your drawings or musings, yet without which none of your apparatus can possibly work? We've pointed it out to you repeatedly -- did you actually learn anything?
Note that there's an error in this drawing as the key element is not shown fulfilling another part of its responsibilities, one particularly significant for your nonsense. Can you figure it out?
[HT to driver for posting this in the Uncommon Descent thread as part of a larger post with relevant material to the topic area Gary fantasize's he's participating in]

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 19 2014,09:27

While we are posting relevant diagrams, from http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng....-genome

Nomad

Posts: 311
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 19 2014,10:26

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 19 2014,06:47)

I have other work today. You'll have to do your own homework.

I can wait. I'm still waiting for an explanation of how one program that does one thing proves that another program can do more than one thing.

I'm sure you'll get right to it when you do have time, rather than start posting links to music videos and talking about stuff nobody even asked you about, right?

JohnW

Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 19 2014,10:56

Quote (NoName @ Aug. 19 2014,06:01)

Gee, Gary, here's a much better diagram than your scribblings.
Can you identify the key element that never appears in any of your drawings or musings, yet without which none of your apparatus can possibly work? We've pointed it out to you repeatedly -- did you actually learn anything?
Note that there's an error in this drawing as the key element is not shown fulfilling another part of its responsibilities, one particularly significant for your nonsense. Can you figure it out?
[HT to driver for posting this in the Uncommon Descent thread as part of a larger post with relevant material to the topic area Gary fantasize's he's participating in]

Is anyone else expecting Gary's ad-nauseam diagram again, but in yellow and orange?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 19 2014,11:06

He'd get a better effect with blue-on-red, or vice versa, for reasons that apparently have to do with how the cones in the eye have learned to distribute their responsibilities. [/snark]

I think you've pretty much captured what Gary will consider the take-away, the thing missing from his diagram -- color.

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 19 2014,18:55

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y236905

Quote (Woodbine @ Aug. 19 2014,13:19)

Quote

Intelligence is the cognitive ability of an individual to learn from experience, to reason well, to remember important information, and to cope with the demands of daily living.

Are you listening, Gaulin?

Yes. But I hope you are not naive enough to believe that a scientist must change the systematics found in cognitive science and in their computer model just because of the invention of one more of thousands of operational definitions that do not have to be as precise, can generalize.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 19 2014,20:00

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 19 2014,18:55)

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y236905

Quote (Woodbine @ Aug. 19 2014,13:19)

Quote

Intelligence is the cognitive ability of an individual to learn from experience, to reason well, to remember important information, and to cope with the demands of daily living.

Are you listening, Gaulin?

Yes. But I hope you are not naive enough to believe that a scientist must change the systematics found in cognitive science and in their computer model just because of the invention of one more of thousands of operational definitions that do not have to be as precise, can generalize.

So Gary confirms his incapability of correctly using systematics, their, and operational definition. Gary, that's a nice example of a theoretical definition, and is very far from an operational definition. The whole point of an operational definition is being precise and not generalizing, being very specific about what something in a way that tells you how to measure it. For all the "thousands" of definitions of intelligence, you have yet to provide one, operational or even theoretical, that is in the slightest bit supportable and logical. The closest you have come to a definition rules out such things as someone planning their life, you thinking out how to resolve a programming problem, or the christian god, if one existed, being intelligent.

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 19 2014,20:10

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 19 2014,20:00)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 19 2014,18:55)

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y236905

Quote (Woodbine @ Aug. 19 2014,13:19)

Quote

Intelligence is the cognitive ability of an individual to learn from experience, to reason well, to remember important information, and to cope with the demands of daily living.

Are you listening, Gaulin?

Yes. But I hope you are not naive enough to believe that a scientist must change the systematics found in cognitive science and in their computer model just because of the invention of one more of thousands of operational definitions that do not have to be as precise, can generalize.

So Gary confirms his incapability of correctly using systematics, their, and operational definition. Gary, that's a nice example of a theoretical definition, and is very far from an operational definition. The whole point of an operational definition is being precise and not generalizing, being very specific about what something in a way that tells you how to measure it. For all the "thousands" of definitions of intelligence, you have yet to provide one, operational or even theoretical, that is in the slightest bit supportable and logical. The closest you have come to a definition rules out such things as someone planning their life, you thinking out how to resolve a programming problem, or the christian god, if one existed, being intelligent.

Let me know when you have enough experience in modeling intelligent systems for me to have an intelligent conversation with you.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 19 2014,21:26

Quote

Let me know when you have enough experience in modeling intelligent systems for me to have an intelligent conversation with you.

We have almost 400 pages that show that you lack an adequate definition of "intelligence" and which also show that you are largely incapable of having an intelligent discussion, so the shortcomings are entirely your own.

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 19 2014,21:41

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 19 2014,21:26)

We have almost 400 pages that show....

We have almost 400 pages that show you and your friends acting stupid and making asses out of yourselves.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 19 2014,22:02

I see you have much the same difficulties understanding reality as you do understanding intelligence.

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 19 2014,22:12

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 19 2014,22:02)

I see you have much the same difficulties understanding reality as you do understanding intelligence.

Dunning and Kruger would definitely shake their heads in astonishment at that comment.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 19 2014,22:23

Oh come on, be original, rather than just recycling charges made against you that you can't defend yourself against.

You claim that intelligence is pervasive through all of the biological realm, so what are the units of intelligence, and how many of them occur in a mushroom, in a liver cell, in an oak tree, and in the white-eye gene in fruit flies?

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 19 2014,22:39

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 20 2014,05:41)

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 19 2014,21:26)

We have almost 400 pages that show....

We have almost 400 pages that show you and your friends acting stupid and making asses out of yourselves.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his ~~clown~~ DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 19 2014,22:56

I had enough verbal abuse from the so called "science defenders" for one day and I have a long week maybe the rest of what's left of my life at my day job, now that I had to put most of my science work on the back burner in order to just survive.

Stop wasting my time.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 19 2014,23:22

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 19 2014,22:56)

I had enough verbal abuse from the so called "science defenders" for one day and I have a long week maybe the rest of what's left of my life at my day job, now that I had to put most of my science work on the back burner in order to just survive.

Stop wasting my time.

You've spent years on a useless and fundamentally wrong-headed set of ideas that you can't support and won't try to defend, so you are fully responsible for wasting your own time.

Again, you claim that intelligence is pervasive through all of the biological realm, so what are the units of intelligence, and how many of them occur in a mushroom, in a liver cell, in an oak tree, and in the white-eye gene in fruit flies?

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 20 2014,00:07

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 19 2014,23:22)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 19 2014,22:56)

I had enough verbal abuse from the so called "science defenders" for one day and I have a long week maybe the rest of what's left of my life at my day job, now that I had to put most of my science work on the back burner in order to just survive.

Stop wasting my time.

You've spent years on a useless and fundamentally wrong-headed set of ideas that you can't support and won't try to defend, so you are fully responsible for wasting your own time.

Thankfully those with the scientific ability to know what the real score is are aware that this forum and others are for malicious comments from nutcases who falsely claim to represent science. Whatever your purpose is, I had enough.

All questions that were asked were already answered in the text of the theory that is free, online, and is still being downloaded by those who genuinely want to program scientific models of intelligent (virtual) living things:

Theory of Intelligent Design page

I did not waste my time writing models and theory. That's all still doing very well, with those who need it. The problem is with asleep at the wheel academics who only need theories that are useful for preaching their religious views.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Woodbine

Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 20 2014,03:26

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 20 2014,04:56)

I had enough verbal abuse from the so called "science defenders" for one day and I have a long week maybe the rest of what's left of my life at my day job, now that I had to put most of my science work on the back burner in order to just survive.

Stop wasting my time.

"Honey,it's not my fault we're living on the streets....don't you see, they made me write over 3000 posts on the internet when I should have bee....oh hey look, roadkill! Tonight we dine like kings!"

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 20 2014,06:37

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 19 2014,21:10)

...
Let me know when you have enough experience in modeling intelligent systems for me to have an intelligent conversation with you.

You have yet to model an intelligent system.
Your 'model' is the equivalent of the old cartoon with two scientists discussing a flow that includes the step "and then a miracle occurs".

You do understand that you cannot model intelligence, in any standard meaning of the term, by drawing a diagram with two 'black boxes' that hide the operations that require intelligence. 'Confidence assessment' and 'guess' serve that purpose in your "model". As such, it can be dismissed out of hand.

But your errors expand far beyond that initial fatal flaw. We have given you countless examples of intelligence that simply cannot be accommodated by your "model". Ironically enough, they include the very act of modeling, of theorizing.

On the grounds of your own "theory" it is clear that you are not 'intelligent'. Get back to us when you've remedied that little flaw.

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 20 2014,06:42

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 20 2014,01:07)

...
I did not waste my time writing models and theory. That's all still doing very well, with those who need it. The problem is with asleep at the wheel academics who only need theories that are useful for preaching their religious views.

You've done nothing but waste your time and your life.

You claim that there are those who accept and support your "theory" and "model".
Outside the voices in your head, they seem awfully hard to find.
In fact, the old taunt "Oh, yeah? Name two!" seems eminently called for.
Name at least two individuals with qualifications in cognitive science, neuroscience, biology, or related scientific fields who are both aware of your work specifically and have explicitly indicated broad acceptance of it. Note that this leaves out Trehub, Heiserman, and the folks who developed IBM's Watson -- you merely fantasize that they would support your effluent if they were aware of it. We know better.

In other words, you're lying and we all know it.

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 20 2014,09:39

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 20 2014,06:56)

I had enough verbal abuse from the so called "science defenders" for one day and I have a long week maybe the rest of what's left of my life at my day job, now that I had to put most of my science work on the back burner in order to just survive.

Stop wasting my time.

Thank you Gary for recognizing us a science defenders but you know what the best part is?

We all have a decent life.

And defending science from loonies only takes up a tiny part of our day.

You on the other hand....

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his ~~clown~~ DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 20 2014,12:14

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 20 2014,00:07)

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 19 2014,23:22)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 19 2014,22:56)

I had enough verbal abuse from the so called "science defenders" for one day and I have a long week maybe the rest of what's left of my life at my day job, now that I had to put most of my science work on the back burner in order to just survive.

Stop wasting my time.

You've spent years on a useless and fundamentally wrong-headed set of ideas that you can't support and won't try to defend, so you are fully responsible for wasting your own time.

Thankfully those with the scientific ability to know what the real score is are aware that this forum and others are for malicious comments from nutcases who falsely claim to represent science. Whatever your purpose is, I had enough.

All questions that were asked were already answered in the text of the theory that is free, online, and is still being downloaded by those who genuinely want to program scientific models of intelligent (virtual) living things:

Theory of Intelligent Design page

I did not waste my time writing models and theory. That's all still doing very well, with those who need it. The problem is with asleep at the wheel academics who only need theories that are useful for preaching their religious views.

What you are doing is not recognizable as "science work", and what we are doing is not "science-stopping.".

What drives scientists more than anything else is wanting better explanations for things. We're people who never grew up beyond the "why, why, why" stage. It's contrary to our nature to want to stop questioning explanations. If you really had something interesting, scientists would be all over it, trying to improve your ideas, trying to modify them, testing them, trying to adapt them. There might be a few who'd be bent out of shape by losing a favorite paradigm, or who'd be overly jealous of someone else coming up with a good idea, but at the very least you'd be generating vigorous intellectual debate. You've got none of that. You've got a fixed idea that no doubt seems perfect and obvious to you and you are making unsupported assertions about it, but for everyone else your ideas are deeply flawed and full of glaring holes. Why is that?

Get your life back by doing something else with it.

You claim that intelligence is pervasive through all of the biological realm, so what are the units of intelligence, and how many of them occur in a mushroom, in a liver cell, in an oak tree, and in the white-eye gene in fruit flies?

JohnW

Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 20 2014,12:42

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 20 2014,10:14)

You claim that intelligence is pervasive through all of the biological realm, so what are the units of intelligence, and how many of them occur in a mushroom, in a liver cell, in an oak tree, and in the white-eye gene in fruit flies?

Intelligence, as per Gary's "definition", has a lot in common with CSI, DFSCI, FIASCO, or whatever UD's design detection du jour is. Measured by "looks designed/intelligent to me", measured quantities are "not much", "some", "a shitload", "more than your position can explain", etc. This is exactly what scientists do, except for a few details.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Aug. 20 2014,14:13

Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 20 2014,12:42)

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 20 2014,10:14)

You claim that intelligence is pervasive through all of the biological realm, so what are the units of intelligence, and how many of them occur in a mushroom, in a liver cell, in an oak tree, and in the white-eye gene in fruit flies?

Intelligence, as per Gary's "definition", has a lot in common with CSI, DFSCI, FIASCO, or whatever UD's design detection du jour is. Measured by "looks designed/intelligent to me", measured quantities are "not much", "some", "a shitload", "more than your position can explain", etc. This is exactly what scientists do, except for a few details.

And, very sadly, that's a better operational definition than Gary has provided in nearly 400 pages.

	Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution