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

Posted: Oct. 03 2015,14:15

Quote

What the "internal representation" sees is shown in the upper right of the screen.

I see a red 'X' in the top right. I suggest that you press it along with 'delete all'.

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

Posted: Oct. 03 2015,14:26

As I've pointed out repeatedly to you, Gary, the fact that we can use calculus to determine where an osprey must fly to capture the fish he spots in the water beneath him does not mean that the osprey performs calculus.
Nor does it mean that the baseball outfielder, or the football place kicker uses calculus to determine where or how to catch or kick the ball successfully.
That we must model archery with calculus, if we are being thorough and careful, does not mean that calculus was known to the warriors at Agincourt. It clearly was not, preceding Leibniz and Newton's efforts by 300+ years. And that was not one of the early examples of archery in practice.

Just because you can model certain limited aspects of human and animal intelligence using a 'homunculus theory' approach does not mean that your model represents how things are in the real phenomenon you are modeling.
It is not evidentiary, nor even suggestive.
Stop insisting otherwise.

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Oct. 03 2015,15:04

In order to help reduce the number of strawman arguments being used against the theory I reworded what I had in parenthesis to read:

Quote

Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. [3] Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail. [4] Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”.

--------------
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

Posted: Oct. 03 2015,15:13

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 03 2015,15:04)

In order to help reduce the number of strawman arguments being used against the theory I reworded what I had in parenthesis to read:

Quote

Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. [3] Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail. [4] Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”.

That doesn't help at all. You are still insisting on motor muscles, which you immediately make metaphorical in order to special-plead for all your favorite exceptions. Your definition includes autofocus cameras and excludes (for example) all the involuntary memory in Proust's "A la recherche du temps perdu".

dazz

Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

Posted: Oct. 03 2015,15:23

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 03 2015,15:04)

In order to help reduce the number of strawman arguments being used against the theory I reworded what I had in parenthesis to read:

Quote

Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. [3] Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail. [4] Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”.

Hey dumbass, this is not thereifixedit.com

Do you seriously think that saves your "theory" and allows for sky pixies without "motor muscles" and "sensory sensors" (I love that one, LMFAO) to qualify as "intelligence"?

How does your Designer fit this part?

Quote

and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail

Oh, of course we all know you don't have "That" designer in mind, right? That's why you didn't need to modify your (not-a) theory to make a mention for "virtual" bodies (funnily, as opposed to real bodies, which implies that God, errrm, excuse me, the "Disembodied Designer" is not real)

Well, you may need to tweak it a little bit more unless you want us to believe your Intelligent Designer (praise the lawd) loses confidence when he fails

And no, you pathetic retard, no one is straw-manning anything. We were exclusively using your own "definition" when we claimed it excludes disembodied designers. You wouldn't need to modify your definition if it was there from the beginning.

You're so stupid that you can't even understand the implication of your own ridiculous claims.

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

Posted: Oct. 03 2015,15:24

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 03 2015,16:04)

In order to help reduce the number of strawman arguments being used against the theory I reworded what I had in parenthesis to read:

Quote

Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. [3] Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail. [4] Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”.

We'll have to add "strawman" to the special "Gaulinese to English" dictionary.

Note, Gary -- your rewording of already rejected crap does not suffice for the thing you most conspicuously lack -- evidence.

You can make all the claims about 'inner representations' or how well your software works, but none of it means spit without evidence that you have identified an actual phenomenon, have evidence for your description/explanation, can make a coherent and logical case connecting said evidence to existing knowledge, etc.

You have none of this. No differentiated or identified phenomena, no evidence, no coherence, no logic, no description of any merit, and no explanation at all.

And this after 8+ years of wandering the web seeking approval for your whiny little fantasies. A smarter person would have worked on improving content, not presentation. But then that's not you, is it?

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Oct. 03 2015,15:44

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 03 2015,15:13)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 03 2015,15:04)

In order to help reduce the number of strawman arguments being used against the theory I reworded what I had in parenthesis to read:

Quote

Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. [3] Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail. [4] Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”.

That doesn't help at all. You are still insisting on motor muscles, which you immediately make metaphorical in order to special-plead for all your favorite exceptions. Your definition includes autofocus cameras and excludes (for example) all the involuntary memory in Proust's "A la recherche du temps perdu".

You're talking trash again. But let me know when you have a cognitive model that has as much. I don't take pride in the we don't know yet but we're working on it crap that is being used to keep others behind in science. From my perspective it's just a common excuse for academic complacency that only feeds the academic money-pits.

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

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

Posted: Oct. 03 2015,15:53

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 03 2015,16:44)

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 03 2015,15:13)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 03 2015,15:04)

In order to help reduce the number of strawman arguments being used against the theory I reworded what I had in parenthesis to read:

Quote

Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. [3] Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail. [4] Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”.

That doesn't help at all. You are still insisting on motor muscles, which you immediately make metaphorical in order to special-plead for all your favorite exceptions. Your definition includes autofocus cameras and excludes (for example) all the involuntary memory in Proust's "A la recherche du temps perdu".

You're talking trash again. But let me know when you have a cognitive model that has as much. I don't take pride in the we don't know yet but we're working on it crap that is being used to keep others behind in science. From my perspective it's just a common excuse for academic complacency that only feeds the academic money-pits.

Except, of course, what you have is wrong, which is considerably worse than "We don't know."
Calling you out on your errors is not 'talking trash'. It's taking care of the trash, which you supply in abundance.
You do not have a 'cognitive model' in any sense of the words.
Interesting, though, that you are now willing to equate 'cognition' with 'intelligence'.

Your "theory" is refuted by the facts on the ground.
Muscle control is the easiest of the flaws to grasp, and your most glaring error, but the rest of your conditions are equally flawed.

You got nothin'
Nothin' but fail.

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

Posted: Oct. 04 2015,08:58

Gary, it is clear that the 'requirement' that there be a motor control system is a big mistake.

So what changes in your "theory" if we remove that from the list? How would your "theory" change if it only involved your 2nd through 4th "requirement"?

We've proven that intelligence does not always require 'something to control'.

Shall we start in on showing you how completely wrong you are, insofar as you are meaningful, in your 'sensory addressed ram' phase? You'll fare no better there.

Or should we jump to the point where we show you that your steps 3 and 4 assume your conclusion by smuggling 'intelligence' into your explanation for 'intelligence'.
That sort of thing isn't allowed in science, you know. Well, maybe you don't know -- but you should.

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Oct. 04 2015,09:12

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,08:58)

We've proven that intelligence does not always require 'something to control'.

None in this or any other forum ever found an exception.

The only thing you proved is how much of liar you are.

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

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

Posted: Oct. 04 2015,09:25

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 04 2015,10:12)

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,08:58)

We've proven that intelligence does not always require 'something to control'.

None in this or any other forum ever found an exception.

The only thing you proved is how much of liar you are.

You are delusional.

We've exhaustively shown that there are 'features of the universe best explained by intelligent cause' that cannot be accounted for by your "theory".
Therefore, your "theory" fails.

Composing a melody does not require 'something to control'. Recognition of a heard melody does not require 'something to control'.

You are unable to show otherwise. All you can do is wibble about how there has to be a body involved. That is not particularly controversial, but lacks utility for your "theory". Many bodies do not exhibit intelligence, so the presence of a body may be a necessary condition for intelligence, but it is neither sufficient nor unique nor determinative. The body, as such, is not involved in crafting or recognizing a melody. So the body, as such, cannot be a meaningful requirement for intelligence specifically.

The only liar in this thread has been you. Persistently.
You cannot show a single place in this thread where I have uttered a lie. Not one.
Retract or support with a citation.

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Oct. 04 2015,09:28

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 04 2015,17:12)

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,08:58)

We've proven that intelligence does not always require 'something to control'.

None in this or any other forum ever found an exception.

The only thing you proved is how much of liar you are.

Jesus Gary even Postcardo is pissing on your stupid idea plus he's posting so many better posts than you. He will soon be passing your pathetic effort. When are you hoing to correct him?

--------------
"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

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Oct. 04 2015,16:01

But I should mention that a "disembodied" God has been presented as an exception that does not require something to control (i.e. a body):

Quote

But what is more damning for your "theory", as already pointed out at antievolution.org, is that neither Molecular, Cellular or Multicellular Level Intelligence allow for any kind of disembodied Intelligent Designer, AKA God.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015....2504340

From the lack of outrage over presenting a disembodied God as scientific evidence it's as though we might as well conclude that the "science defenders" see no problem with that. Maybe it's really no big deal to use the US public school classrooms to teach how to sabotage any scientific theory that has religious implications? With a place like BioLogos only standing ready to be quote-mined for taking "evolutionary theory" religiously what could possibly go wrong, eh?

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

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

Posted: Oct. 04 2015,16:04

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 04 2015,17:01)

But I should mention that a "disembodied" God has been presented as an exception that does not require something to control (i.e. a body):

Quote

But what is more damning for your "theory", as already pointed out at antievolution.org, is that neither Molecular, Cellular or Multicellular Level Intelligence allow for any kind of disembodied Intelligent Designer, AKA God.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015.......2504340

From the lack of outrage over presenting a disembodied God as scientific evidence it's as though we might as well conclude that the "science defenders" see no problem with that. Maybe it's really no big deal to use the US public school classrooms to teach how to sabotage any scientific theory that has religious implications? With a place like BioLogos only standing ready to be quote-mined for taking "evolutionary theory" religiously what could possibly go wrong, eh?

Lots of things have been 'mentioned'.
They don't mean squat.
Which, of course, includes your effluent. Bodied or disembodied, absent an operational definition, we can discard the notion of 'god' as meaningless.

dazz

Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

Posted: Oct. 04 2015,16:16

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 04 2015,16:01)

But I should mention that a "disembodied" God has been presented as an exception that does not require something to control (i.e. a body):

Quote

But what is more damning for your "theory", as already pointed out at antievolution.org, is that neither Molecular, Cellular or Multicellular Level Intelligence allow for any kind of disembodied Intelligent Designer, AKA God.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015.......2504340

From the lack of outrage over presenting a disembodied God as scientific evidence it's as though we might as well conclude that the "science defenders" see no problem with that. Maybe it's really no big deal to use the US public school classrooms to teach how to sabotage any scientific theory that has religious implications? With a place like BioLogos only standing ready to be quote-mined for taking "evolutionary theory" religiously what could possibly go wrong, eh?

You fucking retard, don't dare quote me to support your crap.
What I said is that, even if one was to grant you that your stupid definitions make any sense at all (just for the sake of argument, nobody does really think you make any sense), those would exclude the possibility that a disembodied entity could be an intelligent agent

Quote

From the lack of outrage over presenting a disembodied God as scientific evidence it's as though we might as well conclude that the "science defenders" see no problem with that

where was a "disembodied God" presented as scientific evidence? where is that god you fucking asshole?

And how is ignoring you equivalent to seeing no problem with your arguments?

Henry J

Posts: 5787
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Oct. 04 2015,16:29

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,07:58)

Shall we start in on showing you how completely wrong you are, insofar as you are meaningful, in your 'sensory addressed ram' phase?

Not to mention that "sensory addressed [memory - NOT "RAM"]" would most likely put major limitation on the flexibility of any intelligence that depended on it, and therefore limit its effectiveness.

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

Posted: Oct. 04 2015,16:33

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 04 2015,17:29)

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,07:58)

Shall we start in on showing you how completely wrong you are, insofar as you are meaningful, in your 'sensory addressed ram' phase?

Not to mention that "sensory addressed [memory - NOT "RAM"]" would most likely put major limitation on the flexibility of any intelligence that depended on it, and therefore limit its effectiveness.

Well, this is the same clown who insisted that the only way a creature could navigate was to pre-calculate the total number of available paths and have them all in memory.
No attention to the issue of how ridiculously non-performant that would be.
As a side note, that alone proves that Gary isn't near the programmer he thinks he is.

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Oct. 04 2015,16:44

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,16:16)

Quote

From the lack of outrage over presenting a disembodied God as scientific evidence it's as though we might as well conclude that the "science defenders" see no problem with that

where was a "disembodied God" presented as scientific evidence? where is that god you fucking asshole?

And how is ignoring you equivalent to seeing no problem with your arguments?

Pardonne moi, for my grammar suggesting that you actually presented something. You are right, you presented nothing at all.

And the issue is not about ignoring me. The issue is about condoning unscientific bullshit, by ignoring 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.

dazz

Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

Posted: Oct. 04 2015,16:46

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,16:33)

pre-calculate the total number of available paths and have them all in memory.

Heaven
Earth <
Hell

There are all your paths, you helpless sinner, if you can remember that, isn't it all in memory?

Check-mate atheists!

dazz

Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

Posted: Oct. 04 2015,16:51

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 04 2015,16:44)

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,16:16)

Quote

From the lack of outrage over presenting a disembodied God as scientific evidence it's as though we might as well conclude that the "science defenders" see no problem with that

where was a "disembodied God" presented as scientific evidence? where is that god you fucking asshole?

And how is ignoring you equivalent to seeing no problem with your arguments?

Pardonne moi, for my grammar suggesting that you actually presented something. You are right, you presented nothing at all.

And the issue is not about ignoring me. The issue is about condoning unscientific bullshit, by ignoring you.

I clearly presented you with a reasoned argument on why your crap excludes gods as intelligent agents.

So you have two options: retract your crap, or admit there are no gods

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Oct. 04 2015,17:52

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,16:46)

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,16:33)

pre-calculate the total number of available paths and have them all in memory.

Heaven
Earth <
Hell

There are all your paths, you helpless sinner, if you can remember that, isn't it all in memory?

Check-mate atheists!

Even though you used the religious themes to ridicule someone else you instantly popped into my mind as the taunting blind street preacher in the Little Nicky movie, which does have a happy ending after all but I don't want to be a spoiler about Ozzy helping to save the world and the rest. There are none in the ID movement emulating that level of religious zeal against what you find evil, me.

Your tactic of countering scientific theory with religious stuff like that makes for an amusing contrast that's right out of the movies. The only thing for sure is that you will likewise (metaphorically speaking) only hurt yourself even more by panicking.

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

dazz

Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

Posted: Oct. 04 2015,18:00

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 04 2015,17:52)

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,16:46)

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,16:33)

pre-calculate the total number of available paths and have them all in memory.

Heaven
Earth <
Hell

There are all your paths, you helpless sinner, if you can remember that, isn't it all in memory?

Check-mate atheists!

Even though you used the religious themes to ridicule someone else you instantly popped into my mind as the taunting blind street preacher in the Little Nicky movie, which does have a happy ending after all but I don't want to be a spoiler about Ozzy helping to save the world and the rest. There are none in the ID movement emulating that level of religious zeal against what you find evil, me.

Your tactic of countering scientific theory with religious stuff like that makes for an amusing contrast that's right out of the movies. The only thing for sure is that you will likewise (metaphorically speaking) only hurt yourself even more by panicking.

Tactic? No, I'm just mocking you, fucktard. It would be obvious to anyone with half a brain cell. You have no science to begin with.

dazz

Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

Posted: Oct. 04 2015,18:01

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,16:51)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 04 2015,16:44)

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,16:16)

Quote

From the lack of outrage over presenting a disembodied God as scientific evidence it's as though we might as well conclude that the "science defenders" see no problem with that

where was a "disembodied God" presented as scientific evidence? where is that god you fucking asshole?

And how is ignoring you equivalent to seeing no problem with your arguments?

Pardonne moi, for my grammar suggesting that you actually presented something. You are right, you presented nothing at all.

And the issue is not about ignoring me. The issue is about condoning unscientific bullshit, by ignoring you.

I clearly presented you with a reasoned argument on why your crap excludes gods as intelligent agents.

So you have two options: retract your crap, or admit there are no gods

But you still need to either retract your crap, or admit there are no gods

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Oct. 04 2015,18:20

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 04 2015,17:52)

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,16:46)

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,16:33)

pre-calculate the total number of available paths and have them all in memory.

Heaven
Earth <
Hell

There are all your paths, you helpless sinner, if you can remember that, isn't it all in memory?

Check-mate atheists!

Even though you used the religious themes to ridicule someone else you instantly popped into my mind as the taunting blind street preacher in the Little Nicky movie, which does have a happy ending after all but I don't want to be a spoiler about Ozzy helping to save the world and the rest. There are none in the ID movement emulating that level of religious zeal against what you find evil, me.

Your tactic of countering scientific theory with religious stuff like that makes for an amusing contrast that's right out of the movies. The only thing for sure is that you will likewise (metaphorically speaking) only hurt yourself even more by panicking.

What you have is not a theory, and it is not good science.

ID is, in the words of one of its founders,

Quote

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
"This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."

All of UD is more in-everyone's-face about religion than anyone here - you might want to remind them that they are supposed to be hiding their zealotry.

You are not making ID more scientific - you are merely adding errors about giraffe larynges, insect brains, salmon parental devotion, and so on an so forth, along with religious dog-whistles about Trinities, chromosomal Adams and Eves, etc. Your stuff has been countered by scientific logic, but it is also separately (and correctly) being pointed out that your logic would exclude the possibility of an intelligent god, should anyone want one. We don't care, but your ID buddies might not appreciate that angle of your nonsense.

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Oct. 04 2015,19:01

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,16:51)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 04 2015,16:44)

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,16:16)

Quote

From the lack of outrage over presenting a disembodied God as scientific evidence it's as though we might as well conclude that the "science defenders" see no problem with that

where was a "disembodied God" presented as scientific evidence? where is that god you fucking asshole?

And how is ignoring you equivalent to seeing no problem with your arguments?

Pardonne moi, for my grammar suggesting that you actually presented something. You are right, you presented nothing at all.

And the issue is not about ignoring me. The issue is about condoning unscientific bullshit, by ignoring you.

I clearly presented you with a reasoned argument on why your crap excludes gods as intelligent agents.

So you have two options: retract your crap, or admit there are no gods

The only religion I know of that needs a "disembodied" God is yours.

In world religions God is more of an everywhere and in everything including us force that does not need a material body like ours, cannot be "disembodied".

The theory is now into network models where the something to control is in the network where an entity can have shape and form but as in my network models seeing it requires showing as force vector map for electrochemical forces, from the behavior of matter, which are normally invisible to our eyes. The religious possibilities only increased, not decreased, for all religions that I know of except yours.

--------------
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

Posted: Oct. 04 2015,19:27

Quote

In world religions God is more of an everywhere and in everything including us force that does not need a material body like ours, cannot be "disembodied".

Umm, not having a material body is part of what "disembodied" means.

"Separated from or existing without the body."
"Having no material body, immaterial; incorporeal or insubstantial."

I think we can add "disembodied" to the list of words that pass you in the dark.

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Oct. 04 2015,19:42

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 04 2015,19:27)

Quote

In world religions God is more of an everywhere and in everything including us force that does not need a material body like ours, cannot be "disembodied".

Umm, not having a material body is part of what "disembodied" means.

"Separated from or existing without the body."
"Having no material body, immaterial; incorporeal or insubstantial."

I think we can add "disembodied" to the list of words that pass you in the dark.

The operative phrase is "Something to control" followed by what that boils down to "a body, either real or virtual representation" that covers what can exist in physics and biology (as in a real human brain internal representation we are conscious of) all the way to computer models that do not even need to be conscious to model how "intelligence" works:

Quote

Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. [3] Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail. [4] Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”.

--------------
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

Posted: Oct. 04 2015,20:05

First, you've gone 8-plus years without thinking to add "virtual body", so if it's a critical point, that merely supports our point for these 500-plus pages that your work is faulty, ill-thought-out, and full of problems. Secondly, the whole point of an omnipresent deity is that it doesn't have a virtual body, which, not existing, doesn't need to be controlled. Your whole "something to be controlled" requirement is utter stupidity. Intelligence no doubt emerged from neurons controlling stuff at ever-increasing levels of complexity but that does not mean that intelligence should be defined by "having something to control" - the highest levels of intelligence (evaluating your life, planning your future, dreaming up a solution to a problem, composing a symphony, imagining the plot for a novel) clearly do not require something to be controlled or muscles, virtual or otherwise.

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012