The whole truth
Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
|
| Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Sep. 30 2015,04:58) | | Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,06:45) | | So, Edgar, tell us about the "the real intelligence and the new Intelligent Design", and don't forget to include your evidence. |
Thank you for this thread.
I will make it slowly since my experience in my attempts in peer-review told me that even the reviewers were not sharp enough to understand new discoveries. How about you?
I discovered many things in science and most of them are unsolved problems but in here, I will only limit ourselves on universal and real intelligence and new Intelligent Design <id> since I have work too and I am writing many books. I don't have a full time to reply to all of you that is why I ask you to read all my posts since they are all for you...
But I will help you to understand it. I hope that you could.
I am the Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author of the new Intelligent Design <id> and the discoverer of the real "intelligence".
Well, the old ID was based on "complexity" from Darwin's original idea of eyes as "complex", hence we have "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information" from the old ID but the new Intelligent Design <id> is using the real intelligence only that I've discovered.
Difference between the old intelligence to the new intelligence?
OK, the old intelligence talks about natural phenomenon only...not the actual intelligence. The old intelligence has 60+ researched definitions as published in arxiv.org but the new intelligence has only one definition and it covers all the probably 80+ definitions of old intelligence combined. The new definition of intelligence is also universal, which means you can use it to all X in the entire existence.
Thus, when you talk intelligence without relying/using my new discovery of the real intelligence, you are talking a natural phenomenon and not the actual intelligence, thus, you are surely wrong scientifically.
Thus, I am informing all you here that your science and understanding of reality are wrong since you have no idea of the real intelligence.
In applications, (1) how do we know if a biological cell is designed or not?
Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car?
Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?
If we use the explanatory power from ToE (Theory of Evolution), we will have three answers to the three questions..but for the explanatory power from new Intelligent Design <id>, we will have only one answer to all questions since, as I had claimed and said, that real intelligence is universal...
We can even answer this question: How do you know if a mountain is designed or not?..same answer universally...
or particles or sub-particles or anything...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ADVERSARIAL REVIEW of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be fair to those who bought my science books, I will be sharing you the different content of my science books and in different approach so that all of you who are interested could be a part of this Adversarial Review of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries. I claimed that my new discoveries are universal, obvious and yet sooooooooooo profound and sooooooo straightforward. Thus, I can give you any demonstrations and experiment to show the real intelligence.
BACKGROUND
Before the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered the real intelligence and the universal boundary line (UBL) in the topic of origin and cause and effect, our naturalistic science had no UBL to differentiate a natural phenomenon (naturen) or natural process (naturen) to intelligently designed process or intelligently designed products (intellen). Thus, when all of the scientists were asked the question of the origin of the existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, the answer is always either
“GodDidIt”
Or
“NatureDidIt”.
But if the follow up question is something like this; “How do you know that it is ‘GodDidIt’ or ‘NatureDidIt’” the normal answer for “GodDidIt” is “our holy book said it”. The normal answer for “NatureDidIt” is always a question, “If nature did not do it, which?” assuming that if there is an Agent who had designed existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, a collective nature did it.
They both have answers but they have both no experiments to show that. In short, they have both assumptions and conclusions or pre-determined views. Thus, we have dilemma in science and in reality.
You can choose which camps you want.
NAILING THE BOUNDARY LINE
Here is how the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered and settled the most difficult topic in the topic of origin.
Let us assume that you are a clerk or secretary of a company and your desk is just outside the room of your manager. The manager had asked you to give him/her “one paper clip”. So, you bring one paper clip and give it to him/her. In our human’s way of dealing things, bringing one paper clip to him/her is not an act of intelligence. It is an act of a normal phenomenon or ordinary natural phenomenon. The new Intelligent Design <id> called it “naturen”. If we put that in a simple mathematical relation, we can write like this:
One problem (P) = one solution (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 1, then the ratio is 1.
One paper clip divided by one paper clip will always be one.
The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio a SYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.
Now, let us assume that you bring two paper clips and a stapler to the same request of bringing one paper clip. It depends on the manager, but if you prepare two paper clips and a stapler to solve the future request, the new Intelligent Design <id> called that act as an intellen, for you are not only solving one problem but you are solving one problem with three solutions.
One problem (P) = three solutions (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 3, then the ratio is 3.
Two paper clips + one stapler divided by one paper clip will always be three.
(I am not thinking units here, OK?)
The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio an ASYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.
OK, why it is naturen? If we based our Probability Calculation and its limit (0 < P < 1), we can see that any event to occur has always a probability of 1. Which mean, any natural event or natural phenomenon or natural process will always have the ratio of 1. Both reality and probability agreed that all natural event or natural phenomenon or natural processes have always a ratio of 1.
Let us make more examples in reality:
When you are hungry (problem) for 200 grams of spaghetti and you eat 200 grams of spaghetti (solution), that is also naturen. Or drink 100 ml of soda because you are thirsty of 100 soda, that is also a naturen. My discoveries had been telling and pointing us that there are really a natural process, natural phenomenon and natural event.
OK, why it is intellen? Since we have already declared and discovered that 1 is a naturen in nature and reality, we can see that more than 1 is an intellen since that is how we based our dealing with things. FAILURE or less than 1 is not intellen, obviously.
For example:
1. Paper clip. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are assuring that the work of your manager by using paper clip is successful. Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen.
2. Hungry and Eat. When you eat spaghetti (X) with higher nutrients (for example) that is already considered intellen since you are assuring that your health will continue. This is “life” or “survive” for the new Intelligent Design <id>.
3. Thirsty and Drink: When you drink 100 ml soda with additional nutrients, then, you are an intellen since you are solving the problem of drinking 100 soda only with more additional healthy drink.
In the new Intelligent Design <id>, the way you solve the problem with more solutions is called a principle. A principle is a method. Only an agent that knows intelligent knows this method.
Now, from the above explanations, we can derive the universal definition of intelligence:
Do you wanna guess?
Let me share it here.
Intelligence is the principle of reinforcing an X to survive, to exist and to succeed in a certain degree of importance, and it always acts on asymmetrical phenomenon.
If we use the paper clip, we can explain it from the above definition.
If you bring two or more paper clips, you are reinforcing or supporting your solution to really give your manager a paper clip. What if you give him/her a broken paper clip and you did not have reserve? He or she will tell you that you are “STUPID!” And stupidity is not intellen. So, two are better than one in intellen. And since your work and your manager is important, you keep thinking many solutions to single situation/problem. And since two or more clips are greater than 1, then, you are just doing the asymmetrical phenomenon…a problem-solution-solution principle.
THIS IS the Holy Grail of my new discovery. After you understand this, please, contact the Nobel Prize committee and given them my name and tell them my new discovery.
If we apply that to the origin and cause and effect in Physics, Biology, Philosophy, you will surely blow your intellectual mind and say, “REALLY! That is so simple and yet profound!
Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…
I will be sharing more…
___
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of Intelligent Design <id>. So, Biological Interrelation, BiTs is unproved and un-provable. We believe it only because the only alternative is evolution, and that is unthinkable.
[I][B][/B][B] |
"Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen."
Edgar, when animals use more than one solution, aren't the animals "intellen" by your definition?
--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27
|
