MrIntelligentDesign
Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
|
| Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 07 2015,18:26) | | Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,15:57) | | Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24) | | Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism? |
Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms... |
So why are humans different from animals in regard to defense, with respect to the solutions that you listed for humans, since both use feet, eyes, and mind?
Animals and humans also use teeth and hands. If you are going to list eyes as a defense mechanism, why not also muscles and arteries and hemoglobin and voice and ears?
You didn't mention it, but humans use objects as weapons, such as throwing rocks, which seems intelligent, but many primates do exactly the same: https://books.google.com/books?i....f=false
Now let's talk about your so-called math for a moment, because it turns out that you are not very consistent or definitive with your math, which is a sure indicator of crappy science:
You have defined intellen as 2 or more:
| Quote | | 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. |
You have also defined intellen as 1.5 or greater:
| Quote | | I've already calculated that 1 is for natural process- naturen 1 ~ 1.499999999...is for instinct but it is still naturen |
You also imply that intellen begins right above 1:
| Quote | | 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. |
So which is it?
Throwing some plain old mathematical gobbledygook at it doesn't help: | Quote | | 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. |
A natural event can have a probability <1 and happen anyway. Even if we accept your execrable use of "symmetry" to imply a balance between one need and one solution (that's your "ratio", right?), then symmetry for you means a balance, which to any ordinary person means a 1:1 correspondence. Then by what logic are values of >1 to <1.5 included in "symmetrical"? - you call these "naturen", which you insist is symmetrical, but values not equal to one are clearly result from an imbalance. For that matter, values less than one also indicate a clear asymmetry or imbalance between needs and solutions, but nonetheless you call that naturen, which you call symmetrical.
Furthermore, as NoName noted, you still haven't corrected your misuse of "symmetry", nor have you identified which operations or which axis or plane of symmetry you are invoking in identifying symmetry: are you talking about reflection, rotation, translation, translation + rotation around a screw axis, scale symmetry, glide reflection, or rotoreflection? This looks suspiciously as though you are merely tossing out words that you think will make your work sound more profound than it really is, but surely you wouldn't do that, right? |
GOOD ANALYSIS AND GOOD POST!
Ok, I said that all animals are intellen but all animals except humans use instinct only. Only humans use intelligence. Did you get it?
OK, about math...
You know, in a discussion, I simply summarize the limits so that the other party could visualize my points. But I always consistent to myself that there is always a limit. Of course, when I said that, I meant it and I hoped that the one who read it knew too that I had limits in mind for intelligence.
About symmetry and 1.5..yes, that is a good analysis. But I always think that there is always an exemption and exception to the rules.
Since, I did not find any third categorization of symmetry and asymmetry and since nature can sometimes passed 1, then, I just used both instinct (1.5<) and natural process as "symmetry" since they both have no intelligence.
|
