NoName
Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013
|
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2014,21:20) | Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 19 2014,19:45) | Yes, humans can guess. This is not news. Now how does a molecule guess? |
"TheoryOfIntelligentDesign.pdf"
Quote | Molecular Intelligence
Molecular intelligence (a living thing, life) is emergent from naturally occurring machine-like molecules which together build and maintain cells like we together build and maintain cities. This form of intelligence is sustained by a “replication cycle” that keeps it going through time. Biologically, our thought cycles exist as a brain wave/cycle rhythm but (where physics willing) the system would still work as well by replicating itself (and stored memories) on a regular cycle, as does molecular intelligence. If our brain worked this way then it would replicate/replace itself upon every new thought we have, could this way sustain itself nearly forever. Without cellular intelligence (discussed in next section) to add moment to moment awareness molecular intelligence is at the mercy of the environment, has no way to efficiently forage for food, but they still soon enough can control the planet’s surface/atmospheric chemistry. ... |
|
This is such a wall of gibberish text the mind veritably reels. It would take hours to properly pull this apart and show all the many ways it goes wildly wrong. The language and the tragically abused concepts are so mashed together that they rarely rise to the level of error. For the most part, it is nonsense.
You start the nonsense by equating 'molecular intelligence' to life, that is, to biology. That this is absurd should not need explication -- if what you mean by 'molecular intelligence' is 'biology', use that word. But of course that would reduce the grandiloquence quotient that seems to be your personal measure of quality.
Analogizing molecules to machines is simply wrong. The analogy fails in virtually every respect. it is certainly not explanatory. You once more smuggle the concepts you are seeking to explain into your explanation when you analogize the simple physical and chemical (and thermodynamic) interactions of molecules to the purposeful and intelligently planned and guided construction and maintenance of cities. Circular, therefore false.
The same goes for machines -- machines are a product of intelligence, not a precursor to or ingredient of intelligence. You then proceed to assert entities and facts not in evidence. But worse, you begin talking about cycles and cyclic functions without ever attending to the implication that there are clocking features involved, that there are synchronization mechanisms involved, and that this is a problem to be addressed, not a 'solved piece of the puzzle' to pull into your shoddy construct in support of an explanation it not only fails to provide but also fails to be capable of providing.
You take a giant leap when you proceed to talk as if molecules needed to forage for food or as if molecular behavior were learned, planned, had options or were not, in all cases and circumstances, subject to the vagaries of the current environment of the molecules in question. This is one of the major problems to be solved, you idiot, not something you can preen about as a word salad tossed together in service of a promised explanation that does not and cannot emerge from your gibberish.
Finally, let us make brief mention that in the section that purports to discuss and explain 'molecular intelligence', you use the phrase as part of the explanation by sentence number 3.
That's not how it works, Gary, in any of the various senses of the terms. Quote | REQUIREMENT #1 of 4 - SOMETHING TO CONTROL ...... ...... REQUIREMENT #2 of 4 – SENSORY ADDRESSED MEMORY ...... ...... REQUIREMENT #3 of 4 - CONFIDENCE TO GAUGE FAILURE AND SUCCESS ...... ...... REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS
... |
And here we see once again your list of requirements that specifically exclude from intelligence most of the features that we consider essential. In particular, you exclude a vast number of acts which unquestionably count as intelligent even if you happen to stumble upon acts of intelligence which meet these 4 criteria.
At this point the requirements of both necessary and sufficient conditions are lying brutally savaged on the roadside, having been mugged, raped, and abandoned in your mad careening flight into ever more grandiose delusions.
This is just a brief 'highlights' version of what's wrong with the twaddle you saw fit to quote yet again. We've been over this territory repeatedly, and you have learned nothing from it. This is due in large part to your failure to even attempt to grapple with any of the issues raised. When the vast majority of those issues are such that each individually represents a fatal flaw in your enterprise, this failure represents such a betrayal of science, of human knowledge acquisition in general, as to render your every claim to be working 'in science', to be 'doing science', or even to 'explain' anything at all a vicious self-serving lie.
Have you no shame, sir? At the end of the day, have you not even the self-awareness to generate the shame such behavior ought to produce?
|