RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 393 394 395 396 397 [398] 399 400 401 402 403 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2014,22:24   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 19 2014,21:49)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 19 2014,21:40)
Not relevant.

Biblical expert N.Wells has spoken! All bow to their great wisdom as they ignore what the Bible actually says!!

God, all-knowing (previously covered).
God, present everywhere (as is matter).

https://www.biblegateway.com/resourc....rywhere

First, Gary, let me thank you for the way that, when I suggest some reductio, you so quickly respond with such a cornucopia of ad absurdum.  

Second, I'm only a biblical expert in comparison to you, but that's a very, very low bar to cross.  It's like the way you demonstrated that I know more about salmon than you, but it doesn't take much to beat total ignorance compounded with errors.

   
Quote
God, present everywhere (as is matter).
Lame, even for you.  Mushrooms are largely incapable of writing readable prose, just like you.  So you're a mushroom?

   
Quote
God, all-knowing (previously covered).

No, not previously covered.  "All-knowing" has never been part of your definition of intelligence, but your dreck that is not a theory explicitly states that intelligence requires "[1] body (or modeling platform) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic 'write' to a screen) to control, [2] memory addressed by sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are separate data elements", none of which are considered to be attributes of the christian god by its believers.  Are you stating that your "four-criteria definition" is a non-operative statement?

The christians believe that their god is spirit, not matter, so it is irrelevant that you earlier snuck a religious phrase into your pile of rubbish when you said that behavior of matter can be thought of as being “all knowing”, because their god is not matter but spirit.  Or are you telling the christians that matter created their god rather than the other way around?  Also, that's a truly absurd usage of "all-knowing" if it can be applied to inert matter.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2014,22:41   

Google "god is all-knowing" then "god is intelligent". Do you see a correlation that helps identify the source of your belief that God must be "intelligent" or it's not God?

--------------
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: Sep. 19 2014,22:45   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 19 2014,22:41)
Google "god is all-knowing" then "god is intelligent". Do you see a correlation that helps identify the source of your belief that God must be "intelligent" or it's not God?

Mainstream anti-evolutionist "intelligent designists" want their god to be the INTELLIGENT designer (as one can learn by Googling "god all-knowing intelligent").  Case closed.  This is not my beliefs that you are arguing with.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2014,23:00   

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 19 2014,22:45)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 19 2014,22:41)
Google "god is all-knowing" then "god is intelligent". Do you see a correlation that helps identify the source of your belief that God must be "intelligent" or it's not God?

Mainstream anti-evolutionist "intelligent designers" want their god to be the INTELLIGENT designer.  Case closed.  This is not my beliefs that you are arguing with.

Is there a reason for your suddenly changing the subject from "a standard article of christian faith" to "intelligent designers"?

LOL!

If God were "intelligent" then God was born knowing nothing and has to learn like we do. And that is NOT in the Bible.

--------------
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: Sep. 19 2014,23:41   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 19 2014,23:00)
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 19 2014,22:45)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 19 2014,22:41)
Google "god is all-knowing" then "god is intelligent". Do you see a correlation that helps identify the source of your belief that God must be "intelligent" or it's not God?

Mainstream anti-evolutionist "intelligent designers" want their god to be the INTELLIGENT designer.  Case closed.  This is not my beliefs that you are arguing with.

Is there a reason for your suddenly changing the subject from "a standard article of christian faith" to "intelligent designers"?

LOL!

If God were "intelligent" then God was born knowing nothing and has to learn like we do. And that is NOT in the Bible.

So you are going on record that the christian god is not an intelligent being according to your ideas, correct?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2014,23:55   

Quote (socle @ Sep. 19 2014,22:15)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 19 2014,21:12)
   
Quote (socle @ Sep. 19 2014,21:06)
           
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 19 2014,20:57)
And good news in regards to getting the press bought for rebuilding (that was in worse shape than we thought and had to be fixed as finances allowed) running for a first printing of books/booklets. I can also run it on one of the production machines but only when not busy, which is becoming rare.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014.......1850324

Good God, you're going to print actual physical books of this stuff??

Why not? It would be the third book I printed. I'm already over a decade overdue, for the next generation book.

Well, why not polish up your ID document and self-publish it as an ebook?  Why spend money on physical resources when everyone reads documents on kindles and the like nowadays?


As they say in the trade "Printers do it on paper." But I still like your idea for reaching ebook readers.

I know only one person who has a kindle. And what I have is more of a handout, for anyone, which has to be on paper for those with no internet access.

 
Quote (socle @ Sep. 19 2014,22:15)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 19 2014,21:12)
After typing this, I noticed your comment over at Sandwalk:
 
Quote
If that's what this forum and others would rather I do with what I have then perhaps I am best off helping the Discovery Institute prove how useless the scientific leadership in charge of this issue actually is, by letting the DI handle distribution to the public schools.

...

After thinking about the new possibilities I'm starting to get excited! I'll link Casey (we're already in contact) to this comment.


Is this really going to happen?  Please say it's going to happen  

A good number of Christian theologians would like that too!

As you may know the Discovery Institute sort of got themselves in trouble with mainstream Biblical Creationists for not exactly going along with what they believe. It was one reason why Ben Stein's movie was such a flop. By that time most gave up on them. Only N.Wells and others in their Anti-ID camp blindly accepted the DI religious views as representing mainstream "creationists".

What the DI has for a premise still works fine in regards to the Holy Trinity but saying that God is intelligent is one of those oversimplifications that leads to all sorts of unexpected problems. Science just happens to solve that for them, even though to some it sounds counter-intuitive.

--------------
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.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2014,00:00   

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 19 2014,23:41)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 19 2014,23:00)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 19 2014,22:45)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 19 2014,22:41)
Google "god is all-knowing" then "god is intelligent". Do you see a correlation that helps identify the source of your belief that God must be "intelligent" or it's not God?

Mainstream anti-evolutionist "intelligent designers" want their god to be the INTELLIGENT designer.  Case closed.  This is not my beliefs that you are arguing with.

Is there a reason for your suddenly changing the subject from "a standard article of christian faith" to "intelligent designers"?

LOL!

If God were "intelligent" then God was born knowing nothing and has to learn like we do. And that is NOT in the Bible.

So you are going on record that the christian god is not an intelligent being according to your ideas, correct?

See the above reply in regards to the Holy Trinity, as in:


The "Shield of the Trinity" or Scutum Fidei diagram of traditional Western Christian symbolism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......Trinity

--------------
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.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2014,00:06   

And of course from the theory:

Quote

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause whereby in biology (behavior of matter self-assembles) a collective of intelligent entities at the molecular level (self-replicating genetic systems) combine to cause emergence of intelligence at the cellular level, which combine to cause the emergence of intelligence at the multicellular level, to create us who are thereby a trinity of self-similar intelligence levels at different size scales each systematically and behaviorally in their/our own image, likeness.
.....
This theory has explained why we are a product of intelligent design that contains a trinity of emergent levels of biological intelligence, as follows:


--------------
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: Sep. 20 2014,00:31   

Quote
If God were "intelligent" then God was born knowing nothing and has to learn like we do. And that is NOT in the Bible.


Quote
the behavior of matter can be thought of as being “all knowing”


So, the christian god is not intelligent, but matter is all-knowing.  

That surely makes an impression!

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2014,00:37   

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 20 2014,00:31)
Quote
If God were "intelligent" then God was born knowing nothing and has to learn like we do. And that is NOT in the Bible.


Quote
the behavior of matter can be thought of as being “all knowing”


So, the christian god is not intelligent, but matter is all-knowing.  

That surely makes an impression!

You are now "quote mining" in order to misrepresent what I was explaining.

Perhaps I said enough, to such a deceptive person.

--------------
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: Sep. 20 2014,00:57   

So explain it, in a way that people other than you can follow.

I'm trying to take the plain meaning of your words - how is what I said not what you said?  

Would the christian god, if it existed, fall under your definition of intelligent or not, and if so how do you reconcile that conclusion with your first two requirements of intelligence, "[1] body (or modeling platform) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic 'write' to a screen) to control, [2] memory addressed by sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are separate data elements"?  

Using to your statement that
Quote
For computer modeling purposes the behavior of matter can be thought of as being 'all knowing' in the sense that the behavior is inherent, does not have to learn its responses
is matter all-knowing or not?  Or do you want to change definitions again, when your words become awkward and inconvenient?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2014,07:15   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 20 2014,01:37)
...
You are now "quote mining" in order to misrepresent what I was explaining.

Perhaps I said enough, to such a deceptive person.

You have never explained anything at all.
The closest you have come is throwing verbiage at a notion until it is buried under word vomit.

Putting "quote mining" in scare quotes as you did transforms the meaning from what we might guess you intended into something far closer to reality.
Words are not your friends, Gary.  You should stop hanging out with them.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2014,07:17   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 20 2014,00:55)
...
I know only one person who has a kindle. And what I have is more of a handout, for anyone, which has to be on paper for those with no internet access.
...

Says the moron who has spent years on the internet trying desperately to get someone, anyone, to find something, anything, positive to say about his egregious effluent.

Gary, you're one power outage or service cancellation away from being the crazy person handing out tracts on street corners.
Why wait?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2014,15:45   

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 20 2014,00:57)
So explain it, in a way that people other than you can follow.

I'm trying to take the plain meaning of your words - how is what I said not what you said?  

Would the christian god, if it existed, fall under your definition of intelligent or not, and if so how do you reconcile that conclusion with your first two requirements of intelligence, "[1] body (or modeling platform) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic 'write' to a screen) to control, [2] memory addressed by sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are separate data elements"?  

Using to your statement that    
Quote
For computer modeling purposes the behavior of matter can be thought of as being 'all knowing' in the sense that the behavior is inherent, does not have to learn its responses
is matter all-knowing or not?  Or do you want to change definitions again, when your words become awkward and inconvenient?

I was explaining how according to scripture "God" is more than intelligent God is supposed to somehow be all-knowing and consciously a part of us. The theory makes sense of that by the behavior of matter having to be modeled with memory already knowing everything needed to be the behavioral cause of two intelligent causation events, which results in three levels of intelligence in addition to the all-knowing part they came from.

Without the detail there is the very serious common sense problem of intelligence learning with experience or else it's not intelligence, it's instead all-knowing. Confusing the two concepts together as though they are the same thing causes a logical conflict that ends up contradicting scripture by assuming God grew up somewhere where they learned everything in the universe at a university for Gods or they had to figure it all out on their own.

--------------
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: Sep. 20 2014,18:55   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 20 2014,15:45)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 20 2014,00:57)
So explain it, in a way that people other than you can follow.

I'm trying to take the plain meaning of your words - how is what I said not what you said?  

Would the christian god, if it existed, fall under your definition of intelligent or not, and if so how do you reconcile that conclusion with your first two requirements of intelligence, "[1] body (or modeling platform) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic 'write' to a screen) to control, [2] memory addressed by sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are separate data elements"?  

Using to your statement that      
Quote
For computer modeling purposes the behavior of matter can be thought of as being 'all knowing' in the sense that the behavior is inherent, does not have to learn its responses
is matter all-knowing or not?  Or do you want to change definitions again, when your words become awkward and inconvenient?

I was explaining how according to scripture "God" is more than intelligent God is supposed to somehow be all-knowing and consciously a part of us. The theory makes sense of that by the behavior of matter having to be modeled with memory already knowing everything needed to be the behavioral cause of two intelligent causation events, which results in three levels of intelligence in addition to the all-knowing part they came from.

Without the detail there is the very serious common sense problem of intelligence learning with experience or else it's not intelligence, it's instead all-knowing. Confusing the two concepts together as though they are the same thing causes a logical conflict that ends up contradicting scripture by assuming God grew up somewhere where they learned everything in the universe at a university for Gods or they had to figure it all out on their own.

Thanks for your response, but it is leaving me puzzled.  

First, if matter already has "memory already knowing everything needed to be the behavioral cause of two intelligent causation events" then:
A) Would not matter have to be intelligent? If not, the first intelligent causation event would not in fact be intelligent causation but something else.

B) Where exactly is this memory that is holding all the information that matter knows?

C) What exactly is that information?  How does it differ from standard laws of physics and chemistry?

D) You said earlier that matter is all-knowing, like the christian god.  So how would that god differ from matter?  Does one come from the other, and if so, which?

You objected to my calling the christian god supernatural, yet you describe it as "more than intelligent".  In what way is that not above and beyond nature?

You referred to "memory already knowing everything needed to be the behavioral cause of two intelligent causation events, which results in three levels of intelligence in addition to the all-knowing part they came from."  That sounds like "all-knowing" results from the two causation events that you earlier said come from "all-knowing".  Please clarify.

Are you changing your definition of intelligence to "the ability to learn from experience", because that's rather different from the ability to make a guess, having something to control, and having a body or modelling platform with muscles, and so forth?

Is it then correct to say that in your view the christian god, if it existed, would not exhibit intelligence per se, but something more than intelligence?

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2014,20:48   

Is chasing red herrings better or worse than simply floundering?

---

Would an entity that is all-knowing even need intelligence? If it already knows everything, what would there be that it needs to figure out?

---

Henry

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2014,23:08   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 20 2014,20:48)
Is chasing red herrings better or worse than simply floundering?

---

Would an entity that is all-knowing even need intelligence? If it already knows everything, what would there be that it needs to figure out?

---

Henry

Definitely better.  Gar's rays on darter is his opahs for a favorable public herring and a clam (or salmon like that) for his message from cod, but that's a pike bream.  He's not showing any remoras for inflicting such crappie ideas and such bleak and ruffe writing on his audience and he won't shad up about it, so every sole in the plaice barring a few odd suckers thinks that what he has is complete pollocks and they've haddock up to here.  If he keeps trying to skate over our list of criticisms and won't mullet over, then the conversation will continue to be one carp after another, just for the halibut.  (Saury :) )

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2014,08:27   

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 21 2014,07:08)
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 20 2014,20:48)
Is chasing red herrings better or worse than simply floundering?

---

Would an entity that is all-knowing even need intelligence? If it already knows everything, what would there be that it needs to figure out?

---

Henry

Definitely better.  Gar's rays on darter is his opahs for a favorable public herring and a clam (or salmon like that) for his message from cod, but that's a pike bream.  He's not showing any remoras for inflicting such crappie ideas and such bleak and ruffe writing on his audience and he won't shad up about it, so every sole in the plaice barring a few odd suckers thinks that what he has is complete pollocks and they've haddock up to here.  If he keeps trying to skate over our list of criticisms and won't mullet over, then the conversation will continue to be one carp after another, just for the halibut.  (Saury :) )

I nominate nwells' punishment of GaGa's turtle disaster for POTW!


--------------
"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: Sep. 21 2014,20:50   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 20 2014,20:48)
Is chasing red herrings better or worse than simply floundering?


If chasing red-herrings lead to wasting time floundering then chasing red-herrings is worse.

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 20 2014,20:48)
Would an entity that is all-knowing even need intelligence? If it already knows everything, what would there be that it needs to figure out?


From your questions it seems you understand the inherent logical problem that occurs by assuming an all-knowing entity must also be intelligent. Very good.

The ID computer model is easily able to model either behavior. Darwinian Theory or "modern evolutionary theory" can model neither. It's therefore one more small step for science, which keeps the floundering Theory of Intelligent Design scientifically afloat, no matter what even the DI may accidentally do to sink it.

--------------
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.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2014,21:51   

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 20 2014,18:55)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 20 2014,15:45)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 20 2014,00:57)
So explain it, in a way that people other than you can follow.

I'm trying to take the plain meaning of your words - how is what I said not what you said?  

Would the christian god, if it existed, fall under your definition of intelligent or not, and if so how do you reconcile that conclusion with your first two requirements of intelligence, "[1] body (or modeling platform) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic 'write' to a screen) to control, [2] memory addressed by sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are separate data elements"?  

Using to your statement that          
Quote
For computer modeling purposes the behavior of matter can be thought of as being 'all knowing' in the sense that the behavior is inherent, does not have to learn its responses
is matter all-knowing or not?  Or do you want to change definitions again, when your words become awkward and inconvenient?

I was explaining how according to scripture "God" is more than intelligent God is supposed to somehow be all-knowing and consciously a part of us. The theory makes sense of that by the behavior of matter having to be modeled with memory already knowing everything needed to be the behavioral cause of two intelligent causation events, which results in three levels of intelligence in addition to the all-knowing part they came from.

Without the detail there is the very serious common sense problem of intelligence learning with experience or else it's not intelligence, it's instead all-knowing. Confusing the two concepts together as though they are the same thing causes a logical conflict that ends up contradicting scripture by assuming God grew up somewhere where they learned everything in the universe at a university for Gods or they had to figure it all out on their own.

Thanks for your response, but it is leaving me puzzled.
 

Welcome. But after the last reply I was considering stopping there. I don't need tribunal insults.

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 20 2014,18:55)
First, if matter already has "memory already knowing everything needed to be the behavioral cause of two intelligent causation events" then:
A) Would not matter have to be intelligent? If not, the first intelligent causation event would not in fact be intelligent causation but something else.


Matter does not have to be intelligent for intelligence to be emergent from it.

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 20 2014,18:55)
B) Where exactly is this memory that is holding all the information that matter knows?


For one thing the molecular intelligence level is a memory system going back to the origin of life on this planet. And an all-knowing behavior needs no memory when self-powered matter is all that is needed to produce it. Subatomic level memory cannot be ruled out by the theory, but it's not needed for the theory to make sense.

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 20 2014,18:55)
C) What exactly is that information?  How does it differ from standard laws of physics and chemistry?


There is no difference. It's a more complete understanding of physics and chemistry.

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 20 2014,18:55)
D) You said earlier that matter is all-knowing, like the christian god.  So how would that god differ from matter?  Does one come from the other, and if so, which?


You are now asking religious questions best left to theology but the "God, present everywhere" link might be helpful:

https://www.biblegateway.com/resourc....rywhere

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 20 2014,18:55)
You objected to my calling the christian god supernatural, yet you describe it as "more than intelligent".  In what way is that not above and beyond nature?


That's the way "nature" is. It's expected that the theory is beyond your understanding of what "nature" is, but that does not make "nature" something else.

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 20 2014,18:55)
You referred to "memory already knowing everything needed to be the behavioral cause of two intelligent causation events, which results in three levels of intelligence in addition to the all-knowing part they came from."  That sounds like "all-knowing" results from the two causation events that you earlier said come from "all-knowing".  Please clarify.


Matter is modeled with an all-knowing algorithm. All levels of intelligent or unintelligent behavior that emerge from it are self-similar but don't need to know anything to have been created from the behavior of matter.

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 20 2014,18:55)
Are you changing your definition of intelligence to "the ability to learn from experience", because that's rather different from the ability to make a guess, having something to control, and having a body or modelling platform with muscles, and so forth?


The definition of intelligence does not change by making a logical inference from it such as "the ability to learn from experience".

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 20 2014,18:55)
Is it then correct to say that in your view the christian god, if it existed, would not exhibit intelligence per se, but something more than intelligence?


See Henry's questions. That might help.

--------------
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: Sep. 22 2014,08:48   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 21 2014,22:51)
...
Matter does not have to be intelligent for intelligence to be emergent from it.

We've been telling you that for 6+ years.  You've been insistent that there is a level of molecular intelligence -- not a set of non-intelligent interactions from which intelligence emerges but actual intelligence.
You contradict yourself in the past and you contradict what you proceed to say next.
To assert that it is obvious that you are entirely confused would be a massive understatement.
Your "theory" makes no sense, starting at the level of 'non-intelligent' molecular intelligence.
Quote

   
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 20 2014,18:55)
B) Where exactly is this memory that is holding all the information that matter knows?


For one thing the molecular intelligence level is a memory system going back to the origin of life on this planet.

Nonsense -- you are here asserting that some forms of molecular behavior, or the already denied 'molecular intelligence', are unique to earth.
We have vast amounts of evidence that the behavior of atoms and molecules is universal -- it is not dependent on gross location such as 'this planet' or 'that planet'.
Your statement makes the claim that this is false.
Where's your evidence?  What justifies your claim?

 
Quote
And an all-knowing behavior needs no memory when self-powered matter is all that is needed to produce it. Subatomic level memory cannot be ruled out by the theory, but it's not needed for the theory to make sense.

The "theory" does not make sense.  One small part of the reason is the conceptual confusion surrounding "molecular intelligence"
 
Quote
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 20 2014,18:55)
C) What exactly is that information?  How does it differ from standard laws of physics and chemistry?


There is no difference. It's a more complete understanding of physics and chemistry.

What is/are the completion(s)?  What does your "theory" add?
We've been asking you for years to provide a single thing that your "theory" provides that is not already supplied by chemistry and physics.  Your silence in response is  telling.
Now you pull this absurdity -- what is/are the completion(s)?  Put up or shut up.

 
Quote
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 20 2014,18:55)
D) You said earlier that matter is all-knowing, like the christian god.  So how would that god differ from matter?  Does one come from the other, and if so, which?


You are now asking religious questions best left to theology
...

Nonsense.  It is a question that  follows from you "theory" and your claims about your "theory".

 
Quote
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 20 2014,18:55)
You objected to my calling the christian god supernatural, yet you describe it as "more than intelligent".  In what way is that not above and beyond nature?


That's the way "nature" is. It's expected that the theory is beyond your understanding of what "nature" is, but that does not make "nature" something else.

This is almost but not quite gibberish.
Yes, we expect that theories will go beyond our current understanding of nature.  They do this by actually extending our understanding of nature by providing new logical links between known evidence, new evidence, and new logical links between new evidence and existing evidence and the logical deductions therefrom.
As was noted not long ago in an article on The Panda's Thumb, new theories must subsume previous theories.  That we know the shape of the earth approximates the shape of a sphere is now *known*.  New theories regarding the shape of the earth can only refine that, they cannot assert that the universe is a torus or a mobius strip or a klein flask.
The more we know, the more we can rule out based on what we do, in fact, know, even if what we know is incomplete and includes various degrees of error.
This alone disqualifies your nonsense -- you add nothing, you have no evidence, and you subvert and reject known facts and logical inferences about the real world.
You are entitled to your own delusions, you are not entitled to your own nature.  Or "nature".

   
Quote
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 20 2014,18:55)
You referred to "memory already knowing everything needed to be the behavioral cause of two intelligent causation events, which results in three levels of intelligence in addition to the all-knowing part they came from."  That sounds like "all-knowing" results from the two causation events that you earlier said come from "all-knowing".  Please clarify.


Matter is modeled with an all-knowing algorithm.

The model is not  the thing.
Fighter planes of WW1 are modeled with plastic.  This does not mean they were plastic or contained plastic.
 
Quote
All levels of intelligent or unintelligent behavior that emerge from it are self-similar but don't need to know anything to have been created from the behavior of matter.

Then there is no intelligence there and  we're  back to rejecting the absurd notion of 'molecular intelligence'.
And, just by the way, how can intelligent and unintelligent things be self-similar to each other?
You deny any distinctions between them by denying any means to determine such distinction, yet rely on such distinctions while denying them at a higher level with nonsense such as this.  IOW, you are hopelessly confused and tangled in your own words.  The model is not the thing, the map is not the territory, the thing is not its description.

 
Quote
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 20 2014,18:55)
Are you changing your definition of intelligence to "the ability to learn from experience", because that's rather different from the ability to make a guess, having something to control, and having a body or modelling platform with muscles, and so forth?


The definition of intelligence does not change by making a logical inference from it such as "the ability to learn from experience".

To learn is to change.  Not least, it is to 'take on board' new information.  That is not possible for any entity described as "all knowing."
Your confusion gets the best of you here, as it generally does.

As has been noted before, Gary, words are not your friends.  Stop using them.  Stop abusing them.  Maintain a substantial distance between yourself and them at all times.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2014,08:54   

He just keeps spouting nonsense as if repetition will make it real.

It's like he's trying to be one of those charismatic leaders from whom everyone believes every word of gibberish without question.

Only without the charisma. And without followers.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2014,09:27   

Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 22 2014,09:54)
He just keeps spouting nonsense as if repetition will make it real.

It's like he's trying to be one of those charismatic leaders from whom everyone believes every word of gibberish without question.

Only without the charisma. And without followers.

If gary had some meat, he could make a sammich, if he had some bread. :-P

Edited by stevestory on Sep. 22 2014,10:27

   
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2014,10:31   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 21 2014,19:51)
Subatomic level memory cannot be ruled out by the theory, but it's not needed for the theory to make sense.

Gary, have you considered looking for whatever is needed for your "theory" to make sense?  Because it's not there now.

--------------
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: Sep. 22 2014,12:23   

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 22 2014,11:31)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 21 2014,19:51)
Subatomic level memory cannot be ruled out by the theory, but it's not needed for the theory to make sense.

Gary, have you considered looking for whatever is needed for your "theory" to make sense?  Because it's not there now.

It makes sense to Gary.
What doesn't make sense to him is how it fails to make sense to literally anyone else, anywhere, ever.
Of course, if he squints at it just right, his "theory" makes sense of that phenomenon as well.

The root of the problem is that Gary is clueless about what 'making sense' means or feels like.  He's convinced his effluent 'makes sense' and anyone who claims otherwise must be wrong -- because it 'makes sense' to him.  That leaves him impotent and estranged from science and the world at large, convinced that he's been illegitimately cast out.

Trust me Gary, the casting out is self-inflicted on your part.

Words are not your friends.  Stop using or abusing them, get as far away from them as possible.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2014,16:32   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 21 2014,21:51)
For one thing the molecular intelligence level is a memory system going back to the origin of life on this planet.

If Gary had ever taken a chemistry class beyond high school he might realize how badly this contradicts chemistry as we know it.  Then again, he likes to play coy about what molecules his notions supposedly apply to anyway.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2014,17:39   

I just added this to the Cellular Intelligence section of the theory:

Quote
The cell/bacteria system that learns how to become immune to antibiotics is simply called "immune system". Our multicellular "immune system" is emergent from the more or less normal chemical warfare (between other microbes and environment) that goes on at the cellular level. White blood cells are especially good warriors, which go into action whenever other cells in our body sense then signal to them that there are invaders to destroy.


http://ncse.com/blog.......0878596

http://ncse.com/blog.......0939421

--------------
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: Sep. 22 2014,19:12   

Quote
 
Quote
(N.Wells @ Sep. 20 2014,18:55)
Is it then correct to say that in your view the christian god, if it existed, would not exhibit intelligence per se, but something more than intelligence?

See Henry's questions. That might help.

So that's a yes.

 
Quote
Matter does not have to be intelligent for intelligence to be emergent from it.

 
Quote
Matter is modeled with an all-knowing algorithm. All levels of intelligent or unintelligent behavior that emerge from it are self-similar but don't need to know anything to have been created from the behavior of matter.

If something "emerges" from something else in a scientific sense, then the precursor and the emergent phenomenon are not self-similar and design is not involved. An emergent phenomenon is something new that is qualitatively different from what went before, an unpredictable result of the combination of simpler precursors.  Design is an intentional process that is intended to lead to predictable results: emergence is a process without intent that leads to unpredictable results.

Intelligence has indeed emerged from non-intelligent precursors, but you still haven't given an operational definition for it or a redefinition that justifies using the term for anything below fairly complex brains, nor have you demonstrated that anything that qualifies as intelligence exists at those lower levels.

 
Quote
 
Quote
(N.Wells @ Sep. 20 2014,18:55)
B) Where exactly is this memory that is holding all the information that matter knows?


For one thing the molecular intelligence level is a memory system going back to the origin of life on this planet. And an all-knowing behavior needs no memory when self-powered matter is all that is needed to produce it. Subatomic level memory cannot be ruled out by the theory, but it's not needed for the theory to make sense.  

The genome is a repository of information about what works that has accumulated in continuity since the origin of life.  That does not make it intelligent.  It also does not make guesses.  However, the question is not about life but about matter.  You haven't demonstrated that matter "remembers" anything or "knows" anything, or does anything other than behave according to the laws of physics and chemistry.
What's needed for the theory to make sense is demonstration that molecular.  I'm not sure what you mean by matter being "self-powered": matter gains and loses energy according to the laws of thermodynamics.

 
Quote
 
Quote
(N.Wells @ Sep. 20 2014,18:55)
C) What exactly is that information?  How does it differ from standard laws of physics and chemistry?


There is no difference. It's a more complete understanding of physics and chemistry.

Again, a hollow assertion.  Aside from being very poorly written, your stuff is pretty similar to reading a theological disquisition on the nature of the Trinity or of the holy ghost, which is to say a whole load of hollow but jargon-ridden assertions that are trying to sound learned, with absolutely no actual evidence for the existence of the things under discussion.  If you buy the assumptions, some of it kinda sounds reasonable if you squint at it just right, but otherwise it's just gobbledygook, or a house of cards.  If you think about any religion other than the one that you believe in, it is obvious that the function of the learned theologians in the religion that isn't yours is to jabber sufficiently opaquely and obtusely that the average believer can imagine that someone far more intelligent than them, and/or with a more direct line to their deity, has thought through the problems presented by their dogma and has a reasonable explanation, even if the explanation isn't particularly clear to the audience.  You, in contrast, are the only person who buys into your assertions, which is why no one but you buys into your conclusions.  

Science doesn't work like that.  It sets out operational definitions, which tell everyone what to measure, how to measure it, and in what units it can be measured, so that anyone can go out and measure it for themselves.  No one (notably including you) can measure "molecular intelligence" because no one (including you) knows what it is, and no one (except you) thinks that it actually exists.  Molecular and cellular "intelligence" are clearly obvious to you in exactly the way that spirits are obvious to an animist, but (continuing the parallels) the rest of the world sees no evidence of the spirits, nor any need of them, and wants some hard evidence for them before buying one iota of the animist's explanations for things.  


 
Quote
That's the way "nature" is. It's expected that the theory is beyond your understanding of what "nature" is, but that does not make "nature" something else.

I differ a bit from what NoName said here.  He's absolutely right that every successful new theory must eventually explain everything explained by the previous theory and more, but it's not always the case that new theories incorporate old theories in doing so.  The classic incorporation is Newtonian physics continuing to work just fine within Einsteinian relativity, just as long as you and/or the stuff that you are considering are not moving at velocities or energies near the speed of light.  In other cases, however, a theory can completely be displaced by a newer and better theory.  Phlogiston theory didn't get subsumed into better chemistry, but got tossed onto the dunghill of bad ideas.  Plate tectonics is intermediate: the concept of "stable continents" went to the dunghill, but geosynclines and eugeosynclines and orogenic belts were incorporated into a fuller description and better explanations.

However, there are no cases of replacement by bald assertion or special revelation.  That happens only in religious disputes.  In every case in science, the new theory had put up operational definitions, prove its assumptions, and lay hard supporting evidence on the table.  You don't have that.  

Also, quite apart from your model not being relevant to nearly all the things that you claim for it, a computer model can never provide the sort of proof that you need.  Global climate models are among the most complex and complete computer models out there, but they don't definitively prove anything.  The fact that they work as well as they do helps bolster the claim that we understand how the climate works, but this is based on a huge amount of ground-proofing and testing, and extreme attention to programming algorithms that are as close to realistic as possible.  Your problems with your model include that one modelled bug without genes, without recombination, without a reproducing population and multiple generations cannot say anything about evolution and natural selection.  Contrary to your claims, the ontogeny of a bug is not relevant to the emergence of intelligence over the history of life.  It has no relevance to the Cambrian explosion (whose facts you have wrong), or to a host of other things that you assert.  A modelled insect cannot have a hippocampus when insects don't have that.  Your bug is considerably constrained in its responses to the options that you programmed for it.  You've labelled a lot of things with names without modelling the details of how those things work in the real world.  One doesn't prove global climate change by having a model with an algorithm that has Global Mean Temperature simply rise X degrees for every additional Y ppm of CO2.  As NoName said so aptly, WWI fighter planes are modeled very realistically in plastic, but that doesn't prove that the originals were made of plastic.  You've got huge disconnects between reality and your model.

 
Quote
The definition of intelligence does not change by making a logical inference from it such as "the ability to learn from experience".

As has been pointed out for a long time, that's not a necessary consequence of your "requirements for intelligence".  Besides being so poorly written that they are hard to interpret, your requirements (addressable memory, motor control, "success/fail confidence level", and ability to guess) do not necessarily imply an ability to learn from experience.  They include autofocus cameras and Neato robot vacuum cleaners, but exclude re-evaluating your life.  

There's a small if controversial literature on broadened definitions of intelligence that you could use, starting with whether instinct counts as intelligence and moving on from there, but they are concerned with definitions, operational definitions, verifiable assumptions, quantitative measurements, and other hard evidence, all stuff that you just blow right by.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2014,00:27   

Your loaded definition for "design" as in "design is not involved" is not scientifically acceptable.

I do not have time or even want to discuss your religious beliefs. And I'm not a fool who is going to be talked into making exceptions for your unscientific 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.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2014,06:52   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 23 2014,01:27)
Your loaded definition for "design" as in "design is not involved" is not scientifically acceptable.


Why not?
You keep asserting this, but you continue to provide no evidence; indeed, you continue to provide no evidence you understand what 'design' means.

Quote
I do not have time or even want to discuss your religious beliefs. And I'm not a fool who is going to be talked into making exceptions for your unscientific religious views.

It's always funny to see you expend so much time and effort insisting you don't have time to deal with x.  This is particularly so when x is your own misunderstanding of the valid critiques raised against your own words and misconceptions, and their logical consequences.

It is also worth noting that you are the one who keeps dragging 'religious beliefs' into the discussion.  You're the one who insists they're there, you're the one who insists they matter, and you're the one who insists that other people are both wrong in theirs and wrong in their perception of yours.  All while loudly proclaiming you "don't have time" to deal with these irrelevancies.  Irrelevancies you yourself have made significant.

It's obvious you aspire to be an idiot but lack sufficient talent.  You barely rise to the level of moron, yet consistently express buffoonery.

  
  18634 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (622) < ... 393 394 395 396 397 [398] 399 400 401 402 403 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]