GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
| Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,06:44) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 01 2015,23:28) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 01 2015,20:47) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 01 2015,16:37) | From: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y247348
| Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,06:02) |
As I said that Gary's ID is not talking about intelligence but only a natural phenomenon even though you may understand his idea. |
Go Edgar go! Rah!! |
Here's Edgar on Gary:
| Quote | Gaulin's ideas have relation to ToE.
1. They are both no idea or clue of the real intelligence;
2. They both could not define which is intelligence or not;
3. They both have no experiment for intelligence;
4. They both messed the topic of intelligence. ToE had messed intelligence so badly when ToE defined intelligence with 60+ definitions!
5. They both fairy tales and fantasy!
Thus, they will die without knowing the real intelligence or they will come to my discoveries to learn that topic.
|
So I'm not sure why you are taking comfort from Edgar's comments. |
Edgar is doing a great job showing what an ID outcast really looks like, and how to become one.
In my case: Casey and others might easily be amused by someone making a case over an Intelligence Design Lab finding its way into a public school classroom. They at least know there is very little chance of it even making it to court and even if it does then the only thing for sure is it will likely become fun spirited entertainment for the ID camp to enjoy.
In Edgar's case: Casey and others (after already being dissed like I was by this new-ID) have plenty of reasons to find that Edgar is not "in spirit" with the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design, which is also a scientific requirement for all science theories therefore the case would not be a corporate property type disagreement it would boil down to basic science ethics. With all said the only real question is whether "Edgar" was just an elaborate false-flag troll from your camp who is purposely disgracing everyone and everything in the ID movement or they actually serious. Such questions being raised in court could have him wired-up to a lie-detector, by the very next day. And what a hoot that would be!
The Question and Answer page on the DI website contains the ground rules even Edgar must follow or else they are not in-spirit with the theory, they are off on their own misrepresenting it. All of this is the same as is expected of you and others in the anti-ID movement. I'm no exception and must be very careful to work within the limits that have been set. The result should be theory that its primary theorists like Sal will truly find scientifically useful to them, helps them get the last-laugh in science by having helped pioneer a new scientific area where there are yet no experts. What Edgar has only makes all in the movement more laughed at and invites legal trouble, which is bad for the DI and educators who got caught up in that kind of mess. But it is good that you can now take comfort and feel a little better too after seeing me in-fairness having to not let Edgar get away with what may seem to you like a one sided expectation. It's like free psychotherapy has arrived, for the whole forum to enjoy. |
Please, I will join here.
Sorry Gary that I always told you and anywhere that your version of "intelligence" is wrong, but what should I do?
As I had told you that there are almost 60+ definitions of intelligence so far. I actually included that in one of my science books.
http://arxiv.org/abs........06.3639
Let us assume that there are 70 definitions of intelligence, so your version would be 71th and Behe's version would be 72nd...Dembski would be 73th...Meyer would be 75th
Mine? It would be 74th place...but I can summarize all of the 70+ definition of intelligence to one definition and I did.
So, one word with 80+ definitions? That is a total mess! It would be a mess if half of that version would make IQ's calculation! Think about that!
Yes, DI and me will incompatible since their knowledge of "intelligence" is too different from reality and mine. I cannot compromise my new discoveries, so they are but if we will fight in a debate, I assure you that that they will never win just like those supporters of ToE that they could never win.
Thus, if I will be given a chance to fight in legal battle in court, I will do it...
I'm sorry Gary, I'm really sorry, but for the sake of science, recheck your theory about intelligence and use intelligence in a universal way and see if you can use it...
But I assure you that you cannot go beyond that...
Thus, your version is totally wrong. If I were you, read my science book about intelligence, make a rebuttal so that you could win against my new discoveries and I will delete all my science books and videos..
Or
rediscovery the real universal intelligence and apply that to your theory... |
I agree that one more definition for "intelligence" only adds to an already existing clutter of them.
What I wrote is a description of how a device or (intelligent) system should work. It is often included in documentation, especially maintenance/service documentation, or a user manual. The common name for this is a "Theory of operation". See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......eration
In my case I first had a working model. The "theory" to explain how it works came after that. You now need more than a "definition" for intelligence, you need a computer model with the ability to demonstrate intelligent reciprocal causation.
--------------
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.
|
