RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (42) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: MrIntelligentDesign, Edgar Postrado's new Intelligent Design< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,06:36   

The thread for Edgar Postrado to describe and debate "the real intelligence and the new Intelligent Design".

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

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

   
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,06:58   

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]

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,07:21   

"Thank you for this thread."

You're welcome.

"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 got sharpened yesterday at the best sharpening shop in town.

I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.

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

   
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,07:36   

Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,07:21)
"Thank you for this thread."

You're welcome.

"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 got sharpened yesterday at the best sharpening shop in town.

I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.

Yes, that is the problem for almost 2000 years of span of human history in knowing nature! We just don't know if there is a principle that could govern the existence of any X in the topic of origins and cause and effect!

The result? 60+ definitions of intelliogence!

Darwin and all of the best scientists had forgotten to solve this before they concluded many things/explanations in science![B]

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,07:44   

Allright, enough about what we don't have.

What do you have?

I am all ears.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,08:13   

Well, at least he's talking about the "I" of "ID".   Most of the ID proponents are all about the "D".

However, it always concerns me when people start drawing universal definitions from a sample size of 1.

How do you respond to that concern MrID?

Edited by OgreMkV on Sep. 30 2015,08:14

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,11:46   

Welcome, Edgar Postrado.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1204
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,11:52   

Hello Edgar, I am a busy man and have no time for riff-raff. While your degree in civil engineering might impress some people do you have anything equivalent to a Planet Source Code Superior Coding Award?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,12:00   

Quote (Woodbine @ Sep. 30 2015,11:52)
Hello Edgar, I am a busy man and have no time for riff-raff. While your degree in civil engineering might impress some people do you have anything equivalent to a Planet Source Code Superior Coding Award?

THE GOLD STANDARD. Please have at least 3 marginally positive reviews.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,12:34   

When do we get started?

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4809
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,14:33   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 30 2015,11:34)
When do we get started?

Started? You mean with something that doesn't look more like a sales pitch than it does an explanation of something in science?

  
JohnW



Posts: 2838
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,14:45   

Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,05:21)
I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.

I'm looking forward to seeing how his thoughts on paper-clips, spaghetti, and soda deserve five Nobel Prizes...
Quote
Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…

... four of which don't even exist.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1047
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,14:56   

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 30 2015,14:45)
Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,05:21)
I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.

I'm looking forward to seeing how his thoughts on paper-clips, spaghetti, and soda deserve five Nobel Prizes...
Quote
Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…

... four of which don't even exist.

Not unlike his science.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,16:43   

edit: JohnW beated me.

Edited by stevestory on Sep. 30 2015,17:44

   
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,18:51   

After reading this thread, I am now seriously entertaining the notion that MrIntelligentDesign may actually be a semi-self-aware, semi-intelligent computer program designed by Gary Gaulin.

--------------
Evolander in training

  
Henry J



Posts: 4809
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,20:35   

Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 30 2015,17:51)
After reading this thread, I am now seriously entertaining the notion that MrIntelligentDesign may actually be a semi-self-aware, semi-intelligent computer program designed by Gary Gaulin.

A program where grammar is an emergent property?

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2138
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,21:17   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 30 2015,18:35)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 30 2015,17:51)
After reading this thread, I am now seriously entertaining the notion that MrIntelligentDesign may actually be a semi-self-aware, semi-intelligent computer program designed by Gary Gaulin.

A program where grammar is an emergent property?

That could be done in LISP.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,22:12   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 30 2015,21:17)
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 30 2015,18:35)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 30 2015,17:51)
After reading this thread, I am now seriously entertaining the notion that MrIntelligentDesign may actually be a semi-self-aware, semi-intelligent computer program designed by Gary Gaulin.

A program where grammar is an emergent property?

That could be done in LISP.

Languages are like organisms. If they were intelligently designed, they'd be a hell of a lot more efficient and easier to understand.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1204
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,22:24   

I'm pretty sure Dr. Dr. William Dembski teaches that language has CSI so you better shut your materialist cakehole.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,23:00   

Let me see if I've got this description down. So the processes under analysis in optimal foraging theory would be "naturen" because there is mostly no excess allocation of resources, while the processes under analysis in sexual selection do often involve excess allocation of resources and would thus be "intellen"?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,01:07   

Quote
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.

MrIntelligentDesign, I, and I presume the scientific community as well are looking forward to seeing how you calculate CSI since it has not been possible to get that from the mainstream IDiots.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2138
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,01:35   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 30 2015,21:00)
Let me see if I've got this description down. So the processes under analysis in optimal foraging theory would be "naturen" because there is mostly no excess allocation of resources, while the processes under analysis in sexual selection do often involve excess allocation of resources and would thus be "intellen"?

Oh Dr. Elsberry, we do not really expect a rational reply?

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,04:55   

Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,07:21)
"Thank you for this thread."

You're welcome.

"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 got sharpened yesterday at the best sharpening shop in town.

I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.

What I said is that there is a universal principle for "origin" and "cause & effect" of the above examples that I've shared. Did you get me now? Not yet???

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,04:56   

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 30 2015,07:44)
Allright, enough about what we don't have.

What do you have?

I am all ears.

I have the scientific explanation of intelligence that could categorize if X is intellen or naturen.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,04:57   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 30 2015,08:13)
Well, at least he's talking about the "I" of "ID".   Most of the ID proponents are all about the "D".

However, it always concerns me when people start drawing universal definitions from a sample size of 1.

How do you respond to that concern MrID?

Yes, you hit the bull's eye. From knowing the real intelligence, we can know which are the wrong explanation of "intelligence".

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,04:58   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 30 2015,11:46)
Welcome, Edgar Postrado.

Thank you.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,04:59   

Quote (Woodbine @ Sep. 30 2015,11:52)
Hello Edgar, I am a busy man and have no time for riff-raff. While your degree in civil engineering might impress some people do you have anything equivalent to a Planet Source Code Superior Coding Award?

LOL! I discovered the real intelligence, which means, everything that you knew about intelligence is/are wrong.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,05:01   

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 30 2015,14:45)
Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,05:21)
I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.

I'm looking forward to seeing how his thoughts on paper-clips, spaghetti, and soda deserve five Nobel Prizes...
Quote
Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…

... four of which don't even exist.

What I said and claimed was that we can now know if any X is intellen or naturen. Why we need to know the difference? Because we are explaining nature and reality in naturalistic science.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,05:04   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 30 2015,23:00)
Let me see if I've got this description down. So the processes under analysis in optimal foraging theory would be "naturen" because there is mostly no excess allocation of resources, while the processes under analysis in sexual selection do often involve excess allocation of resources and would thus be "intellen"?

Oh, good! You are pretty close!

In theory (I'm using the word theory here in a colloquial manner) yes, but there is also a limit of intelligence that I did not yet share here.

Naturen is always symmetrical like 10/10...and intellen is asymmetrical like 15/10 but there is always an above limit of asymmetrical and above limit of symmetrical that I've discovered...

Do you get it? I will explain later if you did not get it...

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,05:06   

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 01 2015,01:07)
Quote
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.

MrIntelligentDesign, I, and I presume the scientific community as well are looking forward to seeing how you calculate CSI since it has not been possible to get that from the mainstream IDiots.

CSI = complex specified information from Dembski? Well, I discovered a limit for intelligence. I called it iProb...Next time, I will share it here and you will see how nature and reality works...

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,05:11   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 30 2015,08:13)
Well, at least he's talking about the "I" of "ID".   Most of the ID proponents are all about the "D".

However, it always concerns me when people start drawing universal definitions from a sample size of 1.

How do you respond to that concern MrID?

ADD'L info:

Yes, my newly discovered intelligence is universal in application since existence and the topic of origin and cause and effect are universal..

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,05:54   

I think, having observed the Gaulin thread from a safe distance, that here is someone else with as much energy as the rest of you put together. Which is not necessarily a good thing.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,05:58   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,02:55)
Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,07:21)
"Thank you for this thread."

You're welcome.

"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 got sharpened yesterday at the best sharpening shop in town.

I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.

What I said is that there is a universal principle for "origin" and "cause & effect" of the above examples that I've shared. Did you get me now? Not yet???

Well, you've said various things, and no, I don't get you now.

Frankly, you haven't said anything yet that is worth getting. Are you going to present evidence and a coherent explanation of how that evidence supports 'intelligent design'?

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

   
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,06:02   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Oct. 01 2015,05:54)
I think, having observed the Gaulin thread from a safe distance, that here is someone else with as much energy as the rest of you put together. Which is not necessarily a good thing.

As I said that Gary's ID is not talking about intelligence but only a natural phenomenon even though you may understand his idea.

Mine is different.

Once you understand my idea, you will see that it works all the time since there will be no other intelligence besides my new discovery.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,06:06   

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 01 2015,05:58)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,02:55)
Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,07:21)
"Thank you for this thread."

You're welcome.

"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 got sharpened yesterday at the best sharpening shop in town.

I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.

What I said is that there is a universal principle for "origin" and "cause & effect" of the above examples that I've shared. Did you get me now? Not yet???

Well, you've said various things, and no, I don't get you now.

Frankly, you haven't said anything yet that is worth getting. Are you going to present evidence and a coherent explanation of how that evidence supports 'intelligent design'?

You never yet knew my new discovery and its application.

As I said that my new discovery is based on the classification and categorization between intellen and naturen, do you follow me here?

ToE had claimed that there is no dividing line between intellen and naturen. The new <id> said that there is.

Now, can you get the picture?

  
fusilier



Posts: 247
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,06:41   

From the Uncommonly Dense thread, Mr.IntelligentDesign wrote:
Quote
LOL!!!

I've been living here in Japan for 23 years! NO ENGRISH EVERIDI! I am here in the land of the Rising Sun!

Thus, forgive me for my bad grammars but I think most of my posts are understandable. I wish that you or anyone of you who has perfect grammars could discover the real intelligence, but this discovery was put onto my shoulder. What should I do? I had to do it alone since you never yet buy my science books or send me grants for support. SEND ME GRANTS, TAXES and SUPPORTS and I will reedit all my books to satisfy your language. And see how those discoveries could blow your scientific and intellectual minds!

But one thing I can sure of: I maybe have bad grammars but I have the best science. That is for sure for if now, why should I waste my time here claiming something???


I've offered this before, winner/winfield/MrIntelligentDesign - Send me your Japanese text, and I'll have Daughter #2 translate it.  It will take longer than when I first offered, several years ago, since she's working in the cardio/ortho surgery suite at a hospital in Wisconsin.  (She left Apple about the time you stopped regular posting at CARM.)

romanji, please, since I can't be sure how kanji will come across when printed.

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1772
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,07:21   

Hello Edgar,

I'm trying to wrap my mind around intellen / naturen.

If, back before paperclips, your boss asked you for a way to hold a particular batch of papers together and in response you invented a paperclip, but only thought of a single solution, and then only made one of them and gave just that one to him, and a buddy saw what you did and made a dozen more and gave those to the boss without even being asked, would you have been naturen while your buddy was intellen?

If you work for a pharmaceutical company and your boss assigns you to research two diseases and create two drugs, one per disease, but you discover a single drug that cures both diseases, was that less than intellen on your part?

Runoff from rainfall collects into a single river, so that would be naturen, right?  All rivers eventually flow into deltas, which do the job of passing river water from the river into a larger body of standing water (a lake or the sea), where the river water slows down and thereby deposits sediment.  However, in most deltas the river splits into multiple distributary channels rather than just remaining in one large channel.
http://www.uvm.edu/~jbartl....lta.gif
http://visions-of-earth.com/wp-cont....all.jpg
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg.......497.jpg
Does that make deltas intellen?

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,07:44   

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 01 2015,07:21)
Hello Edgar,

I'm trying to wrap my mind around intellen / naturen.

If, back before paperclips, your boss asked you for a way to hold a particular batch of papers together and in response you invented a paperclip, but only thought of a single solution, and then only made one of them and gave just that one to him, and a buddy saw what you did and made a dozen more and gave those to the boss without even being asked, would you have been naturen while your buddy was intellen?

If you work for a pharmaceutical company and your boss assigns you to research two diseases and create two drugs, one per disease, but you discover a single drug that cures both diseases, was that less than intellen on your part?

Runoff from rainfall collects into a single river, so that would be naturen, right?  All rivers eventually flow into deltas, which do the job of passing river water from the river into a larger body of standing water (a lake or the sea), where the river water slows down and thereby deposits sediment.  However, in most deltas the river splits into multiple distributary channels rather than just remaining in one large channel.
http://www.uvm.edu/~jbartl....lta.gif
http://visions-of-earth.com/wp-cont....all.jpg
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg.......497.jpg
Does that make deltas intellen?

Interesting examples:

1. Hello Edgar,

I'm trying to wrap my mind around intellen / naturen.

If, back before paperclips, your boss asked you for a way to hold a particular batch of papers together and in response you invented a paperclip, but only thought of a single solution, and then only made one of them and gave just that one to him, and a buddy saw what you did and made a dozen more and gave those to the boss without even being asked, would you have been naturen while your buddy was intellen?
ME: No. Inventing a paperclip to hold papers is not intellen since it follows this rationalization:

problem = paperclip,
solution = paper clip.

That is simply a symmetrical phenomenon, a naturen.

But the paper clip becomes intellen if you, the inventor, will make it safer and better than an ordinary paper clip, thus, you are an IA.

Your buddy is not an intellen since there is NO problem to that example in where he could use intelligence.

As I said and claimed that intelligence is always being used by any intelligent agent (IA) in origin and cause and effect.




2. If you work for a pharmaceutical company and your boss assigns you to research two diseases and create two drugs, one per disease, but you discover a single drug that cures both diseases, was that less than intellen on your part?
ME: No, since you are not doing intelligent work anyway. You are just only following this symmetrical phenomenon:

problem? order from boss
solution? follow the boss

That is naturen or a natural phenomenon. But you will become an IA who if you think of a system (X) and give that system a reinforcements X' of more than two) so that the system (X) could function well. That system (X) is intellen.



3. Runoff from rainfall collects into a single river, so that would be naturen, right?  
ME: Yes.


4. All rivers eventually flow into deltas, which do the job of passing river water from the river into a larger body of standing water (a lake or the sea), where the river water slows down and thereby deposits sediment.  However, in most deltas the river splits into multiple distributary channels rather than just remaining in one large channel.
http://www.uvm.edu/~jbartl....lta.gif
http://visions-of-earth.com/wp-cont....all.jpg
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg.......497.jpg
Does that make deltas intellen?
ME: Where is the problem there? Where is the solution? Where is the origin?

Next time, I will share to you on how to use INTELLIGENCE in real application.

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,08:21   

Utter nonsense.

Your paperclip example from page 1 is worse than absurd -- it smuggles in a "fact" that is anything but factual.
One problem, one solution is, strictly speaking, wrong.
Any problem has multiple solutions once we are outside the world of strictly formal systems.  Yes, in decimal arithmetic using the arabic numerals, the 'problem' of 1 + 1 has only one solution, 2.  But 1 + 1 is not really a problem, 2 is not really a solution, 1 + 1 = 2 is a definition.

Have you truly never looked at the range of problems involved in crafting a paperclip? In the range of solutions available at any office supply store?  Or the range of possible solutions by which a person may deliver a single paperclip to their boss?

Your proposed "definition" of 'nature' is ridiculous.  Using it to justify a separate "definition" for 'intellen' compounds the foolishness.  The entire foundation is incoherent, wrong-headed, and entirely unhelpful.

Based on what we've seen so far, you're not even going to be up for an Ignobel.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,08:50   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 01 2015,08:21)
Utter nonsense.

Your paperclip example from page 1 is worse than absurd -- it smuggles in a "fact" that is anything but factual.
One problem, one solution is, strictly speaking, wrong.
Any problem has multiple solutions once we are outside the world of strictly formal systems.  Yes, in decimal arithmetic using the arabic numerals, the 'problem' of 1 + 1 has only one solution, 2.  But 1 + 1 is not really a problem, 2 is not really a solution, 1 + 1 = 2 is a definition.

Have you truly never looked at the range of problems involved in crafting a paperclip? In the range of solutions available at any office supply store?  Or the range of possible solutions by which a person may deliver a single paperclip to their boss?

Your proposed "definition" of 'nature' is ridiculous.  Using it to justify a separate "definition" for 'intellen' compounds the foolishness.  The entire foundation is incoherent, wrong-headed, and entirely unhelpful.

Based on what we've seen so far, you're not even going to be up for an Ignobel.

Please, before you post...can you clarify something?

Are you talking about ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT?? Or are you just talking about solving problems only????

Are you referring to different kind of "intelligence" that is universal, scientific and better than my new discovery??? Do you have that?

When I said problem-solution, I am using it in the topic of ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT since this is where I applied intelligence since the real intelligence is applicable there.

Of course, I knew that "One problem, one solution is, strictly speaking, wrong."

And

I agreed that "Any problem has multiple solutions once we are outside the world of strictly formal systems."

But I always used that in context of my new discoveries (of ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT) since you cannot understand that problem-solution phenomenon if you will never follow my new discoveries...  

"Have you truly never looked at the range of problems involved in crafting a paperclip? In the range of solutions available at any office supply store?  Or the range of possible solutions by which a person may deliver a single paperclip to their boss?" ---
ME: I don't get it..where did you base that?


"Your proposed "definition" of 'nature' is ridiculous.  Using it to justify a separate "definition" for 'intellen' compounds the foolishness.  The entire foundation is incoherent, wrong-headed, and entirely unhelpful."
ME: You mean naturen...OK, I got it. Yes, naturen is always a symmetrical phenomenon and as I said that it has a range and I will share it later...

You knew, once you claimed that my new discoveries about real intelligence and categorization between naturen and intellen is wrong, you are thinking to yourself that you have an idea that is scientifically right...an alternative explanation, maybe.

GOOD. Maybe you are the one who could help me delete all my science books in Amazons and videos in Youtube...Let us compare. Let us see who is right..and please, don't just say that I am a fool without sharing your alternative explanation about the real intelligence...

If I'm wrong, FOR STARTER, then, tell me, WHAT IS INTELLIGENCE? I need an universal, obvious, simple, applicable to all X in the topic of origins and cause and effect, scientific, with experiments or empirical evidences...

LET US COMPARE...OK??

If not, I need your apology to me...choose..

Give me the real and universal intelligence in naturalistic science that is realistic or give me a sincere apology...

Which one is easy for you?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,08:56   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,04:57)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 30 2015,08:13)
Well, at least he's talking about the "I" of "ID".   Most of the ID proponents are all about the "D".

However, it always concerns me when people start drawing universal definitions from a sample size of 1.

How do you respond to that concern MrID?

Yes, you hit the bull's eye. From knowing the real intelligence, we can know which are the wrong explanation of "intelligence".

Quote
LOL! I discovered the real intelligence, which means, everything that you knew about intelligence is/are wrong.


How many points is this worth on the crack pot index? I forget.

Anyway.

MrID, one, I note that you failed to actually the question. It's not a hard question and it's a serious question for people who actually study intelligence. We only have one real example of intelligence, the fact that we argue constantly about the intelligence of some apes, elephants, cetaceans, and corvids is just evidence that we don't know what intelligence really even is.

So, I repeat the question, how do you respond to concerns that you draw conclusions from a sample size of one?

Second, you "KNOW" what "real intelligence" is. Yet you haven't tried to explain it. Why are intelligence researchers wrong? What evidence do you have to support that answer? Why are you right? What evidence do you have to support that answer?

I find it amusing that someone who claims to have found "real intelligence" can't answer some fundamental questions about science.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,08:59   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,06:06)
ToE had claimed that there is no dividing line between intellen and naturen.

Please explain why you think evolution makes a claim about something which exists only in your mind?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,09:01   

Yep, racking up points on the crackpot index.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,09:03   

This look like it is beyond the reach of a normal brain. But that doesn't bother me, I take it as a sign that my brain still is okay.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,09:11   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,08:56)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,04:57)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 30 2015,08:13)
Well, at least he's talking about the "I" of "ID".   Most of the ID proponents are all about the "D".

However, it always concerns me when people start drawing universal definitions from a sample size of 1.

How do you respond to that concern MrID?

Yes, you hit the bull's eye. From knowing the real intelligence, we can know which are the wrong explanation of "intelligence".

Quote
LOL! I discovered the real intelligence, which means, everything that you knew about intelligence is/are wrong.


How many points is this worth on the crack pot index? I forget.

Anyway.

MrID, one, I note that you failed to actually the question. It's not a hard question and it's a serious question for people who actually study intelligence. We only have one real example of intelligence, the fact that we argue constantly about the intelligence of some apes, elephants, cetaceans, and corvids is just evidence that we don't know what intelligence really even is.

So, I repeat the question, how do you respond to concerns that you draw conclusions from a sample size of one?

Second, you "KNOW" what "real intelligence" is. Yet you haven't tried to explain it. Why are intelligence researchers wrong? What evidence do you have to support that answer? Why are you right? What evidence do you have to support that answer?

I find it amusing that someone who claims to have found "real intelligence" can't answer some fundamental questions about science.

OK, the the topic that we are discussing is very difficult, so difficult that scientist all over the world thought that intelligence is not part in science especially in Biology, Physics..etc..

I've already answered you. Did you not read it?

What are you talking about when you said "...We only have one real example of intelligence"?

Oh, so you are following ToE's errors...how do you know if these animals " apes, elephants, cetaceans, and corvids " that you've posted use instinct and not intelligence? What is the dividing line between "instinct" and "intelligence"?

Of course that "...just evidence that we don't know what intelligence really even is. " you really don't know intelligence.

I repeat the answer to your question "So, I repeat the question, how do you respond to concerns that you draw conclusions from a sample size of one?" One sample is enough when we talk about existence.

Second, you "KNOW" what "real intelligence" is.
ME: Please, read at the OP. "Intelligence is a principle..."


Yet you haven't tried to explain it.
ME: Do you understand the definition?




Why are intelligence researchers wrong?
ME: Because they talk natural phenomenon when they talked about intelligence.


What evidence do you have to support that answer?
ME: I already gave you an empirical evidence. Do you think you use intelligence when you eat because you are hungry? If the answer is No, then, you knew already what is a natural phenomenon...and natural phenomenon is always symmetrical phenomenon...DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?




Why are you right?
ME: Because I have science, I have empirical evidence and my new discoveries are too obvious and too simple and yet universal...


What evidence do you have to support that answer?
ME: I already gave you one example of empirical evidence that you do it everyday...

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,09:16   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,08:59)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,06:06)
ToE had claimed that there is no dividing line between intellen and naturen.

Please explain why you think evolution makes a claim about something which exists only in your mind?

I've read TalkOrigins website many times. I did not find one single article explaining biological phenomenon with respect to intelligence especially when the topic of origin of species is concerned..

Thus, ToE had dismissed intelligence and ToE assumed that intelligence = 0. But, let us make another thread for this. I don't have time to explain Biology now. Let us finish "intelligence" first since once you knew it already, you can already figure it out the that ToE is wrong...

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1199
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,09:32   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,09:16)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,08:59)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,06:06)
ToE had claimed that there is no dividing line between intellen and naturen.

Please explain why you think evolution makes a claim about something which exists only in your mind?

I've read TalkOrigins website many times. I did not find one single article explaining biological phenomenon with respect to intelligence especially when the topic of origin of species is concerned..

Thus, ToE had dismissed intelligence and ToE assumed that intelligence = 0. But, let us make another thread for this. I don't have time to explain Biology now. Let us finish "intelligence" first since once you knew it already, you can already figure it out the that ToE is wrong...

Look Mr. Postrado, we are busy people, and there are millions of people who come here every day to bask in the glow of ID luminaries such as Gary Gaulin and Joe Gallien.   Until you can reach their level of comprehensive detail and explanatory power, you're wasting our time.  

Joe has shown conclusively that ticks like watermelon, ice is not water and the information content in a birfday caek can be quantified by counting the letters in the recipe.  For his part, Gary has demonstrated, with voluminous evidence, that insects have four legs and mammalian brains and that animals that eat their young are excellent examples of good parenting skills.

The bar is set pretty high, so you need to stop with the multi-posting of teasers and bring out the good stuff.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,09:37   

What, specifically, do you mean by 'intelligence'?
Give 3 examples to support your definition.

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for considering any given entity, process, or event 'intelligent'?

What evidence supports your various assertions, such as the alleged fact that the theory of evolution as 'ruled out' intelligence, in any form?

The question is under what conditions, for what items, is 'intelligence' a factor which must be considered as a possible element?

What evidence exists that 'intelligence' in your specific meaning could or should be taken to be a factor in, say, the origin of species in all cases?

  
JohnW



Posts: 2838
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,11:59   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,07:32)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,09:16)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,08:59)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,06:06)
ToE had claimed that there is no dividing line between intellen and naturen.

Please explain why you think evolution makes a claim about something which exists only in your mind?

I've read TalkOrigins website many times. I did not find one single article explaining biological phenomenon with respect to intelligence especially when the topic of origin of species is concerned..

Thus, ToE had dismissed intelligence and ToE assumed that intelligence = 0. But, let us make another thread for this. I don't have time to explain Biology now. Let us finish "intelligence" first since once you knew it already, you can already figure it out the that ToE is wrong...

Look Mr. Postrado, we are busy people, and there are millions of people who come here every day to bask in the glow of ID luminaries such as Gary Gaulin and Joe Gallien.   Until you can reach their level of comprehensive detail and explanatory power, you're wasting our time.  

Joe has shown conclusively that ticks like watermelon, ice is not water and the information content in a birfday caek can be quantified by counting the letters in the recipe.  For his part, Gary has demonstrated, with voluminous evidence, that insects have four legs and mammalian brains and that animals that eat their young are excellent examples of good parenting skills.

The bar is set pretty high, so you need to stop with the multi-posting of teasers and bring out the good stuff.

I suspect we'll be moving straight from teasers to "you are not capable of understanding my brilliance" without a pause for actual content.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,12:23   

To make it simple, I say

atoms and molecules are intelligent inasmuch that they behave in a predictable and consistent manner.


And there the similarity ends. As far as I am concerned, the kind of intelligence worthy of serious consideration in a scientific context is the kind of intelligence we know that not only humans are in possession of, but also by research and observation of behavior found in species as genetically removed as parrots and apes.

There isn't anything mysterious or sophisticated about that, it is a natural phenomenon, a feature of modern brains.

The Gary Gaulins among us - there is more than one, they will never make any impact and may safely be left to their own aparte ideas, claims and statements and they will all be left on the scrapheap of history like the Brabazoon, cold fusion, and  Intelligent Design.

ETA: Brabazoon is what I thought but what I had in mind was the Spruce Goose.

Edited by Quack on Oct. 01 2015,23:54

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,12:41   

Are we there yet?

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
k.e..



Posts: 3896
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,13:00   

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 01 2015,20:23)
To make it simple, I say

atoms and molecules are intelligent inasmuch that they behave in a predictable and consistent manner.


And there the similarity ends. As far as I am concerned, the kind of intelligence worthy of serious consideration in a scientific context is the kind of intelligence we know that not only humans are in possession of, but also by research and observation of behavior found in species as genetically removed as parrots and apes.

There isn't anything mysterious or sophisticated about that, it is a natural phenomenon, a feature of modern brains.

The Gary Gaulins among us - there is more than one,they will never make any impact and may safely be left to their own aparte ideas, claims and statements and they will all be left on the scrapheap of history like the Brabazoon, cold fusion, and  Intelligent Design.

(Am I too critical wrt the Brabazoon?)

Gary has always been a bit paranoid and believes his illusions are real but this new phenomena you are alluding to is full blown schizoid replication. Could Postcardo be Gary's Oriental quantum doppelganger?

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:27   

I already miss the digital Roomba.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:28   

MrID,

Here's my question. Given a system, can you tell if it is intelligent or not? Here's a few, tell why... using your purely OBJECTIVE criteria.

ticks
an HVAC system
an uncut 40 carat diamond
a cut 40 carat diamond
a human in a medically induced coma with severe brain damage
a dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)

Remember, it must be objective. Not your subjective opinions... the paperclip was a really poor example, because the determination of intelligence was made by changing the PoV of the person asking the question... unless you are saying that intelligence is a purely quantum wavefunction that an intelligent system can collapse...

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:35   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 01 2015,09:37)
What, specifically, do you mean by 'intelligence'?
Give 3 examples to support your definition.

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for considering any given entity, process, or event 'intelligent'?

What evidence supports your various assertions, such as the alleged fact that the theory of evolution as 'ruled out' intelligence, in any form?

The question is under what conditions, for what items, is 'intelligence' a factor which must be considered as a possible element?

What evidence exists that 'intelligence' in your specific meaning could or should be taken to be a factor in, say, the origin of species in all cases?

So, you really don't know the real intelligence and yet you have a nerve to call my new discoveries utterly nonsense!

What is that!

I need an apology first before I answer you since you accused me of something that I did not do.

Or present here your alternative explanation of intelligence since you have a nerve to say that I am wrong.

Choose...

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:37   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,09:32)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,09:16)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,08:59)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,06:06)
ToE had claimed that there is no dividing line between intellen and naturen.

Please explain why you think evolution makes a claim about something which exists only in your mind?

I've read TalkOrigins website many times. I did not find one single article explaining biological phenomenon with respect to intelligence especially when the topic of origin of species is concerned..

Thus, ToE had dismissed intelligence and ToE assumed that intelligence = 0. But, let us make another thread for this. I don't have time to explain Biology now. Let us finish "intelligence" first since once you knew it already, you can already figure it out the that ToE is wrong...

Look Mr. Postrado, we are busy people, and there are millions of people who come here every day to bask in the glow of ID luminaries such as Gary Gaulin and Joe Gallien.   Until you can reach their level of comprehensive detail and explanatory power, you're wasting our time.  

Joe has shown conclusively that ticks like watermelon, ice is not water and the information content in a birfday caek can be quantified by counting the letters in the recipe.  For his part, Gary has demonstrated, with voluminous evidence, that insects have four legs and mammalian brains and that animals that eat their young are excellent examples of good parenting skills.

The bar is set pretty high, so you need to stop with the multi-posting of teasers and bring out the good stuff.

I'm reaching you but it seems that ToE's deep influenced had really messed your intellectual minds..

Now, did you understand my OP?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4809
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:38   

Quote
MrID,

Here's my question. Given a system, can you tell if it is intelligent or not? Here's a few, tell why... using your purely OBJECTIVE criteria.

ticks
an HVAC system
an uncut 40 carat diamond
a cut 40 carat diamond
a human in a medically induced coma with severe brain damage
a dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)

Remember, it must be objective. Not your subjective opinions... the paperclip was a really poor example, because the determination of intelligence was made by changing the PoV of the person asking the question... unless you are saying that intelligence is a purely quantum wavefunction that an intelligent system can collapse...


Not to mention

Roomba
Camera with focus device
The bug in Gary's program

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:39   

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 01 2015,11:59)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,07:32)

I suspect we'll be moving straight from teasers to "you are not capable of understanding my brilliance" without a pause for actual content.

The topic that we are discussing is a very difficult topic that even the best scientists from ToE could not even differentiate an intellen to instinct...

Thus, be patient...

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:41   

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 01 2015,12:23)
To make it simple, I say

atoms and molecules are intelligent inasmuch that they behave in a predictable and consistent manner.


And there the similarity ends. As far as I am concerned, the kind of intelligence worthy of serious consideration in a scientific context is the kind of intelligence we know that not only humans are in possession of, but also by research and observation of behavior found in species as genetically removed as parrots and apes.

There isn't anything mysterious or sophisticated about that, it is a natural phenomenon, a feature of modern brains.

The Gary Gaulins among us - there is more than one, they will never make any impact and may safely be left to their own aparte ideas, claims and statements and they will all be left on the scrapheap of history like the Brabazoon, cold fusion, and  Intelligent Design.

(Am I too critical wrt the Brabazoon?)

You are talking the wrong intelligence. There are almost 60+ definitions of intelligence, as published in arxiv.org...

Search it online and you will see how ToE had messed the topic of intelligence.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:43   

The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

But the folks here who allowed the Gary Gaulin thread to carry on for hundreds of pages are nothing if not patient.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:46   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,14:28)
MrID,

Here's my question. Given a system, can you tell if it is intelligent or not? Here's a few, tell why... using your purely OBJECTIVE criteria.



Remember, it must be objective. Not your subjective opinions... the paperclip was a really poor example, because the determination of intelligence was made by changing the PoV of the person asking the question... unless you are saying that intelligence is a purely quantum wavefunction that an intelligent system can collapse...

I've said that real intelligence is always being used in ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT.

ticks...intellen since ticks have defense mechanisms


an HVAC system...intellen since it is too obvious..


an uncut 40 carat diamond...i don't know, probably naturen


a cut 40 carat diamond...intellen since it is to obvious


a human in a medically induced coma with severe brain damage...human itself is intellen since it has a defense mechanism



a dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)....intellen since it has a defense mechanism

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:47   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:43)
The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

But the folks here who allowed the Gary Gaulin thread to carry on for hundreds of pages are nothing if not patient.

As I said that Gary's explanation of intelligence is wrong. He had just followed ToE's idea of intelligence which is wrong.

Now, do you understand my OP?

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:57   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:47)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:43)
The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

But the folks here who allowed the Gary Gaulin thread to carry on for hundreds of pages are nothing if not patient.

As I said that Gary's explanation of intelligence is wrong. He had just followed ToE's idea of intelligence which is wrong.

Now, do you understand my OP?

Yes, I understand that it's garbage. So fucking incoherent, it's not even wrong.

You don't rise to the level of crank.

Really good cranks, like Mr time cube, have mathy fun stuff, or digital Roombas.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:05   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:57)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:47)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:43)
The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

But the folks here who allowed the Gary Gaulin thread to carry on for hundreds of pages are nothing if not patient.

As I said that Gary's explanation of intelligence is wrong. He had just followed ToE's idea of intelligence which is wrong.

Now, do you understand my OP?

Yes, I understand that it's garbage. So fucking incoherent, it's not even wrong.

You don't rise to the level of crank.

Really good cranks, like Mr time cube, have mathy fun stuff, or digital Roombas.

So, since you claimed that my new discovery and explanation of intelligence is incoherent, then, you have in your mind the coherent "intelligence".

OK, NOW, let us compare.

WHAT IS the coherent "intelligence" from you?

I need the universal intelligence, simple and scientific and give me one empirical evidence. If your intelligence is not universal to be used for ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT, stop sharing it since it is already invalid.

IF not, I need an apology from you..

Choose, which one is easier for you...

apology or your coherent "intelligence"...

GIVE IT HERE...

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:08   

You get no apology. Your brain is as addled as Gary's without being interesting.

Cranks are supposed to be amusing and entertaining. That's why I ask, when do you start?

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:11   

Quote (fusilier @ Oct. 01 2015,06:41)
From the Uncommonly Dense thread, Mr.IntelligentDesign wrote:
Quote
LOL!!!

I've been living here in Japan for 23 years! NO ENGRISH EVERIDI! I am here in the land of the Rising Sun!

Thus, forgive me for my bad grammars but I think most of my posts are understandable. I wish that you or anyone of you who has perfect grammars could discover the real intelligence, but this discovery was put onto my shoulder. What should I do? I had to do it alone since you never yet buy my science books or send me grants for support. SEND ME GRANTS, TAXES and SUPPORTS and I will reedit all my books to satisfy your language. And see how those discoveries could blow your scientific and intellectual minds!

But one thing I can sure of: I maybe have bad grammars but I have the best science. That is for sure for if now, why should I waste my time here claiming something???


I've offered this before, winner/winfield/MrIntelligentDesign - Send me your Japanese text, and I'll have Daughter #2 translate it.  It will take longer than when I first offered, several years ago, since she's working in the cardio/ortho surgery suite at a hospital in Wisconsin.  (She left Apple about the time you stopped regular posting at CARM.)

romanji, please, since I can't be sure how kanji will come across when printed.

I don't believe in your offer for if you are really willing to learn new discoveries and new science, you had already bought my science books and write a rebuttal or alternative explanation for the universal intelligence and publish it in Amazon. Remember that you have the best grammars.

I am not in a hurry. As along as my family is safe knowing the real intelligence, I don't care others.

I wish that your kids and grand kids will not ask you this question:

"Dad or Grandpa, if you eat because you are hungry, do you use intelligence?"

or any variation of that question...

To answer that question scientifically, you will surely come to me. That is why, you must train your kids not to ask simple questions in science to avoid me.

Thus, no thanks..I wrote science books to document my new discoveries. TAKE THEM or LEAVE them...but to leave them without knowing intelligence is too dangerous for you...

But I don't care, that is your life...

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:13   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,15:08)
You get no apology. Your brain is as addled as Gary's without being interesting.

Cranks are supposed to be amusing and entertaining. That's why I ask, when do you start?

Then, no problem. You will get no answer. Take my new discoveries or leave them..that is not my problem anymore.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:17   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:46)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,14:28)
MrID,

Here's my question. Given a system, can you tell if it is intelligent or not? Here's a few, tell why... using your purely OBJECTIVE criteria.



Remember, it must be objective. Not your subjective opinions... the paperclip was a really poor example, because the determination of intelligence was made by changing the PoV of the person asking the question... unless you are saying that intelligence is a purely quantum wavefunction that an intelligent system can collapse...

I've said that real intelligence is always being used in ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT.

ticks...intellen since ticks have defense mechanisms


an HVAC system...intellen since it is too obvious..


an uncut 40 carat diamond...i don't know, probably naturen


a cut 40 carat diamond...intellen since it is to obvious


a human in a medically induced coma with severe brain damage...human itself is intellen since it has a defense mechanism



a dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)....intellen since it has a defense mechanism

Right, so you have no idea and are just guessing. Your "evidence and objective explanation" is "it's obvious".

Wow.

To me, it is obvious you are just making stuff up.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:17   

I confess, I am curious how to know when a square is not a rectangle.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:23   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,16:05)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:57)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:47)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:43)
The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

But the folks here who allowed the Gary Gaulin thread to carry on for hundreds of pages are nothing if not patient.

As I said that Gary's explanation of intelligence is wrong. He had just followed ToE's idea of intelligence which is wrong.

Now, do you understand my OP?

Yes, I understand that it's garbage. So fucking incoherent, it's not even wrong.

You don't rise to the level of crank.

Really good cranks, like Mr time cube, have mathy fun stuff, or digital Roombas.

So, since you claimed that my new discovery and explanation of intelligence is incoherent, then, you have in your mind the coherent "intelligence".

OK, NOW, let us compare.

WHAT IS the coherent "intelligence" from you?

I need the universal intelligence, simple and scientific and give me one empirical evidence. If your intelligence is not universal to be used for ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT, stop sharing it since it is already invalid.

IF not, I need an apology from you..

Choose, which one is easier for you...

apology or your coherent "intelligence"...

GIVE IT HERE...

Staggeringly wrong-headed.

We know quite well, with countless examples available, that one need not know a coherent theory of x to be able to recognize that the purported theory is incoherent.
Incoherence can include a wide variety of particular problems.  Incoherence in definition vis a vis example cases, incoherence in logical form, incoherence in word usage, with jargon, technical language, or standard form of the language used, etc.

The absence of "the universal intelligence, simple and scientific, with empirical evidence" definition or example could trivially easily be taken to be prima facie evidence that there is no such thing.  Things that exist generally guide appropriate language definition and construction as well as example cases in the ongoing development of any given language.

So, we're still waiting for you to come up with a coherent definition and/or example for intelligence.
Be a dear and include a listing of the necessary and sufficient conditions for whatever intelligence turns out to be under your definition.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:44   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,15:17)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:46)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,14:28)
MrID,

Here's my question. Given a system, can you tell if it is intelligent or not? Here's a few, tell why... using your purely OBJECTIVE criteria.



Remember, it must be objective. Not your subjective opinions... the paperclip was a really poor example, because the determination of intelligence was made by changing the PoV of the person asking the question... unless you are saying that intelligence is a purely quantum wavefunction that an intelligent system can collapse...

I've said that real intelligence is always being used in ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT.

ticks...intellen since ticks have defense mechanisms


an HVAC system...intellen since it is too obvious..


an uncut 40 carat diamond...i don't know, probably naturen


a cut 40 carat diamond...intellen since it is to obvious


a human in a medically induced coma with severe brain damage...human itself is intellen since it has a defense mechanism



a dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)....intellen since it has a defense mechanism

Right, so you have no idea and are just guessing. Your "evidence and objective explanation" is "it's obvious".

Wow.

To me, it is obvious you are just making stuff up.

LOL!!!

What are you talking about???

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:52   

You tell me. I just quoted you.

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt. Are you saying the RESULT of intelligence or that these things ARE intelligent?

There's a problem though if you think that the results of intelligence are some defining. Because, again, we have only one example of an intelligence (though for some members of that group, we have to use the term very loosely). So again, you're drawing a conclusion from a sample size of one... which is not a really good thing to do.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1507
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,16:05   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:43)
The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

But the folks here who allowed the Gary Gaulin thread to carry on for hundreds of pages are nothing if not patient T.A.R.D addicts.

FTFY.  The struggle is real.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,17:43   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 01 2015,16:05)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:43)
The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

But the folks here who allowed the Gary Gaulin thread to carry on for hundreds of pages are nothing if not patient T.A.R.D addicts.

FTFY.  The struggle is real.

I fear that overdose may be a real danger here.

--------------
Evolander in training

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1199
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,17:45   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:37)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,09:32)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,09:16)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,08:59)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,06:06)
ToE had claimed that there is no dividing line between intellen and naturen.

Please explain why you think evolution makes a claim about something which exists only in your mind?

I've read TalkOrigins website many times. I did not find one single article explaining biological phenomenon with respect to intelligence especially when the topic of origin of species is concerned..

Thus, ToE had dismissed intelligence and ToE assumed that intelligence = 0. But, let us make another thread for this. I don't have time to explain Biology now. Let us finish "intelligence" first since once you knew it already, you can already figure it out the that ToE is wrong...

Look Mr. Postrado, we are busy people, and there are millions of people who come here every day to bask in the glow of ID luminaries such as Gary Gaulin and Joe Gallien.   Until you can reach their level of comprehensive detail and explanatory power, you're wasting our time.  

Joe has shown conclusively that ticks like watermelon, ice is not water and the information content in a birfday caek can be quantified by counting the letters in the recipe.  For his part, Gary has demonstrated, with voluminous evidence, that insects have four legs and mammalian brains and that animals that eat their young are excellent examples of good parenting skills.

The bar is set pretty high, so you need to stop with the multi-posting of teasers and bring out the good stuff.

I'm reaching you but it seems that ToE's deep influenced had really messed your intellectual minds..

Now, did you understand my OP?

My intellectual mind are shallow influenced, but deeply amusement by crackpots.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
sparc



Posts: 1985
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,22:33   

Originally posted this in the following wrong thread:

Quote
Those who don't want to follow this thread may just have a look here and here. MrIntelligentDesign's comments at Amazon cleary show that this thread will not even be entertaining or amusing.


IMO it doesn't make sense to invest in this discussion when the usual suspects fighting Tard Throne over at UD don't even ignore him. It's just unreadable BS which doesn't make sense at all and I am sorry I kind of invited him.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,03:10   

Edgar Postrado said:

"ME: Because they talk natural phenomenon when they talked about intelligence."

So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?

You ask us if we understand your OP, but what's there to understand? About all you've done so far is assert some arrogant claims without any evidence and a coherent explanation to support whatever it is that you're claiming. Apparently English isn't your main language and I'm trying to not hold that against you but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you're saying. And, you really should quit beating around the bush and get to the point.

You're pushing 'intelligent design'. How do you define 'intelligent design'? What evidence and coherent explanation do you have that supports the how, when, where, and why of 'intelligent design' by 'the designer'? And who or what is 'the designer'?

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

   
Amadan



Posts: 1334
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,03:51   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,21:17)
I confess, I am curious how to know when a square is not a rectangle.

Oh, oh, me sir! Me me sir!

This is Fitzwilliam Square in Dublin.



The women in the picture are going around the square.

Can I have a gold star sir? Please?

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,04:48   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,15:52)
You tell me. I just quoted you.

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt. Are you saying the RESULT of intelligence or that these things ARE intelligent?

There's a problem though if you think that the results of intelligence are some defining. Because, again, we have only one example of an intelligence (though for some members of that group, we have to use the term very loosely). So again, you're drawing a conclusion from a sample size of one... which is not a really good thing to do.

I said that some of them are intellen. When I say "intellen" I mean "intelligently designed X"...

Is that fair enough?

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,04:49   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,17:45)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:37)

My intellectual mind are shallow influenced, but deeply amusement by crackpots.

If I'm crackpot, then, can you tell me the real intelligence as used in universal application for origin and cause & effect? If not, then, you are a crackpot and moron.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,04:51   

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 01 2015,22:33)
Originally posted this in the following wrong thread:

Quote
Those who don't want to follow this thread may just have a look here and here. MrIntelligentDesign's comments at Amazon cleary show that this thread will not even be entertaining or amusing.


IMO it doesn't make sense to invest in this discussion when the usual suspects fighting Tard Throne over at UD don't even ignore him. It's just unreadable BS which doesn't make sense at all and I am sorry I kind of invited him.

I am here to tell you that your knowledge of intelligence is wrong. If you think that you have the universal and scientific explanation of intelligence,e then, let us intellectually fight. Are you afraid?

If not, then you are only spamming and trolling this thread.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,04:55   

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,03:10)
Edgar Postrado said:

"ME: Because they talk natural phenomenon when they talked about intelligence."

So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?

You ask us if we understand your OP, but what's there to understand? About all you've done so far is assert some arrogant claims without any evidence and a coherent explanation to support whatever it is that you're claiming. Apparently English isn't your main language and I'm trying to not hold that against you but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you're saying. And, you really should quit beating around the bush and get to the point.

You're pushing 'intelligent design'. How do you define 'intelligent design'? What evidence and coherent explanation do you have that supports the how, when, where, and why of 'intelligent design' by 'the designer'? And who or what is 'the designer'?

1. So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?
ME: No. Since they are both existing in the whole natural realm but in the entire natural realm, there are natural phenomena or naturen and intelligent phenomena or intellen.

2. You ask us if we understand your OP, but what's there to understand?
ME: I said that we can now categorize and differentiate an intellen to naturen. Do you understand this? I mean, there is a dividing line between  natural phenomena or naturen and intelligent phenomena or intellen and that is what I've discovered. Do you understand this?

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,05:13   

So Edgar, intellen means "intelligently designed" and naturen means "produced naturally", right?
Is everything in existence either intellen or naturen?

  
KevinB



Posts: 355
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,05:22   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:43)
The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

But the folks here who allowed the Gary Gaulin thread to carry on for hundreds of pages are nothing if not patient.

Ah. yes. AtBC, where the patient are in charge of the asylum.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,06:03   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,02:55)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,03:10)
Edgar Postrado said:

"ME: Because they talk natural phenomenon when they talked about intelligence."

So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?

You ask us if we understand your OP, but what's there to understand? About all you've done so far is assert some arrogant claims without any evidence and a coherent explanation to support whatever it is that you're claiming. Apparently English isn't your main language and I'm trying to not hold that against you but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you're saying. And, you really should quit beating around the bush and get to the point.

You're pushing 'intelligent design'. How do you define 'intelligent design'? What evidence and coherent explanation do you have that supports the how, when, where, and why of 'intelligent design' by 'the designer'? And who or what is 'the designer'?

1. So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?
ME: No. Since they are both existing in the whole natural realm but in the entire natural realm, there are natural phenomena or naturen and intelligent phenomena or intellen.

2. You ask us if we understand your OP, but what's there to understand?
ME: I said that we can now categorize and differentiate an intellen to naturen. Do you understand this? I mean, there is a dividing line between  natural phenomena or naturen and intelligent phenomena or intellen and that is what I've discovered. Do you understand this?

No, I don't understand that.

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

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,06:10   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,02:49)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,17:45)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:37)

My intellectual mind are shallow influenced, but deeply amusement by crackpots.

If I'm crackpot, then, can you tell me the real intelligence as used in universal application for origin and cause & effect? If not, then, you are a crackpot and moron.

Edgar, you're the one making claims about something you call "the real intelligence as used in universal application for origin and cause & effect" so you're the one who should support your claims about it.

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

   
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,06:29   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,05:51)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 01 2015,22:33)
Originally posted this in the following wrong thread:

 
Quote
Those who don't want to follow this thread may just have a look here and here. MrIntelligentDesign's comments at Amazon cleary show that this thread will not even be entertaining or amusing.


IMO it doesn't make sense to invest in this discussion when the usual suspects fighting Tard Throne over at UD don't even ignore him. It's just unreadable BS which doesn't make sense at all and I am sorry I kind of invited him.

I am here to tell you that your knowledge of intelligence is wrong. If you think that you have the universal and scientific explanation of intelligence,e then, let us intellectually fight. Are you afraid?

If not, then you are only spamming and trolling this thread.

That's not how it works.
The view that it is is why you are a crackpot, a crank, a useless loon.

One need not have a 'universal and scientific explanation of intelligence' in hand in order to reject your claims to have one.
You cannot identify the necessary and sufficient conditions for attributing intelligence to any given thing, process, or event.
Thus, you are claiming to have an explanation for something you cannot clearly and unambiguously specify.
Thus, you are, well, not even wrong.  You haven't begun the journey you claim to have completed.
And no one else needs to walk that road to show that you have not.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,06:46   

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,06:03)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,02:55)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,03:10)
Edgar Postrado said:

"ME: Because they talk natural phenomenon when they talked about intelligence."

So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?

You ask us if we understand your OP, but what's there to understand? About all you've done so far is assert some arrogant claims without any evidence and a coherent explanation to support whatever it is that you're claiming. Apparently English isn't your main language and I'm trying to not hold that against you but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you're saying. And, you really should quit beating around the bush and get to the point.

You're pushing 'intelligent design'. How do you define 'intelligent design'? What evidence and coherent explanation do you have that supports the how, when, where, and why of 'intelligent design' by 'the designer'? And who or what is 'the designer'?

1. So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?
ME: No. Since they are both existing in the whole natural realm but in the entire natural realm, there are natural phenomena or naturen and intelligent phenomena or intellen.

2. You ask us if we understand your OP, but what's there to understand?
ME: I said that we can now categorize and differentiate an intellen to naturen. Do you understand this? I mean, there is a dividing line between  natural phenomena or naturen and intelligent phenomena or intellen and that is what I've discovered. Do you understand this?

No, I don't understand that.

Which?

You don't understand my grammars

or you cannot accept my science?

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,06:49   

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,06:10)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,02:49)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,17:45)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:37)

My intellectual mind are shallow influenced, but deeply amusement by crackpots.

If I'm crackpot, then, can you tell me the real intelligence as used in universal application for origin and cause & effect? If not, then, you are a crackpot and moron.

Edgar, you're the one making claims about something you call "the real intelligence as used in universal application for origin and cause & effect" so you're the one who should support your claims about it.

Yes, and I am asking you which part that you understand and you cannot accept.

I think that you understand my points but since you cannot accept it, then, you will insist that you don't understand..

OK, let us make it in detail again:

I discovered the real intelligence. Your knowledge of intelligence is wrong and not scientific

Do you understand that or do you accept that?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,08:04   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,04:48)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,15:52)
You tell me. I just quoted you.

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt. Are you saying the RESULT of intelligence or that these things ARE intelligent?

There's a problem though if you think that the results of intelligence are some defining. Because, again, we have only one example of an intelligence (though for some members of that group, we have to use the term very loosely). So again, you're drawing a conclusion from a sample size of one... which is not a really good thing to do.

I said that some of them are intellen. When I say "intellen" I mean "intelligently designed X"...

Is that fair enough?

Not really.

What you seem to be saying is that X is intelligently designed because it was designed by an intelligence.

First, it's circular.

Second, in spite of your complaining about ID proponents, this is exactly the same argument that they use.

And it still falls under the problem that I mentioned before. You're trying to determine a general condition for the universe with a sample size of one.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,08:15   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,07:49)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,06:10)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,02:49)
   
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,17:45)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:37)

My intellectual mind are shallow influenced, but deeply amusement by crackpots.

If I'm crackpot, then, can you tell me the real intelligence as used in universal application for origin and cause & effect? If not, then, you are a crackpot and moron.

Edgar, you're the one making claims about something you call "the real intelligence as used in universal application for origin and cause & effect" so you're the one who should support your claims about it.

Yes, and I am asking you which part that you understand and you cannot accept.

I think that you understand my points but since you cannot accept it, then, you will insist that you don't understand..

OK, let us make it in detail again:

I discovered the real intelligence. Your knowledge of intelligence is wrong and not scientific

Do you understand that or do you accept that?

We understand the assertion.
We do not agree with it.

Without definitions, evidence, and logic, assertions aren't worth the effort it takes to emit them.
Yours are particularly absurd, but absurd or not, they are merely unsupported assertions that fall apart as soon as you begin to try to bolster them.

You haven't a clue as to what intelligence, as such, might be.
You have discovered nothing about it.
You appear to be equally clueless about both the processes and products of science.
You are not doing science in any way, shape, or form.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,08:28   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,04:46)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,06:03)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,02:55)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,03:10)
Edgar Postrado said:

"ME: Because they talk natural phenomenon when they talked about intelligence."

So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?

You ask us if we understand your OP, but what's there to understand? About all you've done so far is assert some arrogant claims without any evidence and a coherent explanation to support whatever it is that you're claiming. Apparently English isn't your main language and I'm trying to not hold that against you but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you're saying. And, you really should quit beating around the bush and get to the point.

You're pushing 'intelligent design'. How do you define 'intelligent design'? What evidence and coherent explanation do you have that supports the how, when, where, and why of 'intelligent design' by 'the designer'? And who or what is 'the designer'?

1. So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?
ME: No. Since they are both existing in the whole natural realm but in the entire natural realm, there are natural phenomena or naturen and intelligent phenomena or intellen.

2. You ask us if we understand your OP, but what's there to understand?
ME: I said that we can now categorize and differentiate an intellen to naturen. Do you understand this? I mean, there is a dividing line between  natural phenomena or naturen and intelligent phenomena or intellen and that is what I've discovered. Do you understand this?

No, I don't understand that.

Which?

You don't understand my grammars

or you cannot accept my science?

Your grammar is difficult to understand, and I'm still waiting for you to present some science.

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

   
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,08:41   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,05:55)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,03:10)
Edgar Postrado said:

"ME: Because they talk natural phenomenon when they talked about intelligence."

So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?

You ask us if we understand your OP, but what's there to understand? About all you've done so far is assert some arrogant claims without any evidence and a coherent explanation to support whatever it is that you're claiming. Apparently English isn't your main language and I'm trying to not hold that against you but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you're saying. And, you really should quit beating around the bush and get to the point.

You're pushing 'intelligent design'. How do you define 'intelligent design'? What evidence and coherent explanation do you have that supports the how, when, where, and why of 'intelligent design' by 'the designer'? And who or what is 'the designer'?

1. So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?
ME: No. Since they are both existing in the whole natural realm but in the entire natural realm, there are natural phenomena or naturen and intelligent phenomena or intellen.

...

Here is a good example of where and how you go so far off the rails the train isn't even visible.  I've italicized the crucial first question and bolded your response.

Intelligence is not a supernatural phenomenon.  We understand and agree.
Intelligence exists as part of the natural realm.  We understand and agree.
And yet somehow you bifurcate natural phenomena, which include intelligence, from the phenomenon of 'the natural'.
We understand and we disagree strenuously.  The stance is incoherent, illogical, insane.
You have a superset/subset relationship, a part/whole relationship where you now want to assert a disjunction between the superset and the set, between the part and the whole.
This is all one needs to see to know that your views are incoherent.  You violate the meanings of fundamental terms, you abuse fundamental concepts and you get them dreadfully wrong in support of whatever perverse notions about an undefined 'intelligence' you've dreamed up.
You then proceed to assert that you have explained this undefined phenomenon.
Claiming that it is part of the superset and yet not part of the superset, it is both a part of a whole and not a part of a whole is literally insane.
Do you see where you've gone wrong?
Or do we have to keep explaining this?

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,08:54   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,04:49)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,06:10)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,02:49)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,17:45)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:37)

My intellectual mind are shallow influenced, but deeply amusement by crackpots.

If I'm crackpot, then, can you tell me the real intelligence as used in universal application for origin and cause & effect? If not, then, you are a crackpot and moron.

Edgar, you're the one making claims about something you call "the real intelligence as used in universal application for origin and cause & effect" so you're the one who should support your claims about it.

Yes, and I am asking you which part that you understand and you cannot accept.

I think that you understand my points but since you cannot accept it, then, you will insist that you don't understand..

OK, let us make it in detail again:

I discovered the real intelligence. Your knowledge of intelligence is wrong and not scientific

Do you understand that or do you accept that?

No, I do not understand that and I do not accept that because you have not presented any evidence and a coherent explanation that supports your confusing claims. I thought that you would have something to present that would be at least somewhat interesting and challenging in a scientific way but pretty much all I've seen from you so far is bragging about your alleged discovery of "the real intelligence as used in universal application for origin and cause & effect" with no evidential or coherent explanatory support.

If you want your claims to be understood and accepted, you're going to have to do a lot more than you've done so far.

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

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2602
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,09:17   

https://ixquick-proxy.com/do....f....f1a2faa

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
KevinB



Posts: 355
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,09:34   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 02 2015,08:41)

Here is a good example of where and how you go so far off the rails the train isn't even visible.

I was thinking of one of those "haunted house" type fairground rides, with the little cars that run round a contorted, and ultimately circular, track.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,13:36   

Quote (KevinB @ Oct. 02 2015,09:34)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 02 2015,08:41)

Here is a good example of where and how you go so far off the rails the train isn't even visible.

I was thinking of one of those "haunted house" type fairground rides, with the little cars that run round a contorted, and ultimately circular, track.

Disney Autotopia. The wheel turns, but isn't connected to anything.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
QED



Posts: 41
Joined: July 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,16:39   

MrIntelligentDesign, I have a few questions...

1) This has been your answer to those who question your ideas:

"You don't really know the nature and meaning of "intelligence". If you think my science is wrong, just make an experiment showing that I am wrong and publish it anywhere and let us compare. I DEMAND AN EXPERIMENT if you think that I am incorrect in science. If you are scientifically correct, I will delete all my science books. If not, then, you are only spamming my science book."

Do you really not understand what science is or how it works? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus is on you to provide experiments that demonstrate your ideas. Can I DEMAND an experiment from you showing you are right, please? Get it through established scientific peer-review and published in a respected journal? Not a "thought" experiment. An actual material-based hypothesis, experiment, and rational conclusion that supports your ideas?

2) Think back to a time when you became convinced that ToE was incorrect. What was the motivation, the moment of enlightenment, the epiphany that steered you so confidently on your alternate path?

3) Could we have moar bible verses, please?

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,19:54   

Quote (QED @ Oct. 02 2015,16:39)
MrIntelligentDesign, I have a few questions...

1) This has been your answer to those who question your ideas:

"You don't really know the nature and meaning of "intelligence". If you think my science is wrong, just make an experiment showing that I am wrong and publish it anywhere and let us compare. I DEMAND AN EXPERIMENT if you think that I am incorrect in science. If you are scientifically correct, I will delete all my science books. If not, then, you are only spamming my science book."

Do you really not understand what science is or how it works? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus is on you to provide experiments that demonstrate your ideas. Can I DEMAND an experiment from you showing you are right, please? Get it through established scientific peer-review and published in a respected journal? Not a "thought" experiment. An actual material-based hypothesis, experiment, and rational conclusion that supports your ideas?

2) Think back to a time when you became convinced that ToE was incorrect. What was the motivation, the moment of enlightenment, the epiphany that steered you so confidently on your alternate path?

3) Could we have moar bible verses, please?

Thank you for your post.

1. I only challenged any person if that person concluded that I am wrong without knowing my new discoveries especially the new and real intelligence. This thread is for all of you to know the real intelligence and I am not expecting that you will accept my new discoveries no matter how hard I try give you evidences.

Maybe the newt two future generations will listen to me but our generation? No, impossible. Just think about Galileo. Thus, don't concluded that I am wrong. Just say I don't know and I am here to help.

2. When I discovered the real intelligence, I was convinced that ToE was totally wrong. My degree in engineering cannot support ToE unless I become insane.

3. LOL!

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,19:56   

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,08:54)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,04:49)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,06:10)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,02:49)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,17:45)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:37)

My intellectual mind are shallow influenced, but deeply amusement by crackpots.

If I'm crackpot, then, can you tell me the real intelligence as used in universal application for origin and cause & effect? If not, then, you are a crackpot and moron.

Edgar, you're the one making claims about something you call "the real intelligence as used in universal application for origin and cause & effect" so you're the one who should support your claims about it.

Yes, and I am asking you which part that you understand and you cannot accept.

I think that you understand my points but since you cannot accept it, then, you will insist that you don't understand..

OK, let us make it in detail again:

I discovered the real intelligence. Your knowledge of intelligence is wrong and not scientific

Do you understand that or do you accept that?

No, I do not understand that and I do not accept that because you have not presented any evidence and a coherent explanation that supports your confusing claims. I thought that you would have something to present that would be at least somewhat interesting and challenging in a scientific way but pretty much all I've seen from you so far is bragging about your alleged discovery of "the real intelligence as used in universal application for origin and cause & effect" with no evidential or coherent explanatory support.

If you want your claims to be understood and accepted, you're going to have to do a lot more than you've done so far.

OK, let us start again.

Answer me:

When you eat because you are hungry, do you use intelligence?

  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,20:00   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,19:54)
Just think about Galileo.



--------------
Evolander in training

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,20:02   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 02 2015,08:41)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,05:55)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,03:10)
Edgar Postrado said:

"ME: Because they talk natural phenomenon when they talked about intelligence."

So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?

You ask us if we understand your OP, but what's there to understand? About all you've done so far is assert some arrogant claims without any evidence and a coherent explanation to support whatever it is that you're claiming. Apparently English isn't your main language and I'm trying to not hold that against you but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you're saying. And, you really should quit beating around the bush and get to the point.

You're pushing 'intelligent design'. How do you define 'intelligent design'? What evidence and coherent explanation do you have that supports the how, when, where, and why of 'intelligent design' by 'the designer'? And who or what is 'the designer'?

1. So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?
ME: No. Since they are both existing in the whole natural realm but in the entire natural realm, there are natural phenomena or naturen and intelligent phenomena or intellen.

...

Here is a good example of where and how you go so far off the rails the train isn't even visible.  I've italicized the crucial first question and bolded your response.

Intelligence is not a supernatural phenomenon.  We understand and agree.
Intelligence exists as part of the natural realm.  We understand and agree.
And yet somehow you bifurcate natural phenomena, which include intelligence, from the phenomenon of 'the natural'.
We understand and we disagree strenuously.  The stance is incoherent, illogical, insane.
You have a superset/subset relationship, a part/whole relationship where you now want to assert a disjunction between the superset and the set, between the part and the whole.
This is all one needs to see to know that your views are incoherent.  You violate the meanings of fundamental terms, you abuse fundamental concepts and you get them dreadfully wrong in support of whatever perverse notions about an undefined 'intelligence' you've dreamed up.
You then proceed to assert that you have explained this undefined phenomenon.
Claiming that it is part of the superset and yet not part of the superset, it is both a part of a whole and not a part of a whole is literally insane.
Do you see where you've gone wrong?
Or do we have to keep explaining this?

LOL!

I am not talking about superset and set...since "existence" of any X is a set...a universal set.

For example, if an agent would like X to exist, how does this agent do it?

That agent uses intelligence, since intelligence is success and success is survival and existence. Failure is non-intelligence, thus, no existence.

Thus, existence is only one set, a universal set, thus, intelligence is always used for universal application.

Now, use X = cosmos, or particles, or species, or PC, or bike, or mountain, or anything...and you will see that the existence of any X uses the universal principle of intelligence.

Thus, your post is wrong.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1772
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,20:20   

Quote
Answer me:
When you eat because you are hungry, do you use intelligence?

Quote
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. ....... 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.

If intellen is providing an excess above the required minimum, then someone in the habit of eating twice what they need has an intelligence problem?

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,20:23   

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 02 2015,20:20)
Quote
Answer me:
When you eat because you are hungry, do you use intelligence?

If intellin is providing an excess above the required minimum, then someone in the habit of eating twice what they need has an intelligence problem?

But the real intelligence also has limit...

I hope this will help...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....28cz-84

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1772
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,20:55   

Sorry, you answered impressively quickly, before I had properly fixed the question, so I posted an edit after you had posted your response. From your video, I understand that a response on the order of 0 to 1 relative to need defines naturen while >1 to 1.5 defines instinct, and 1.5 to 3 defines intellen, so the person who eats only to the level needed is showing naturen, while eating half as much again as is needed is instinct, but eating twice as much as needed would be intellen, so my hypothetical person eating twice as much as needed is indeed suffering an intelligence problem.

How do we classify someone who eats four times as much as is needed?

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,21:02   

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 02 2015,20:55)
Sorry, you answered impressively quickly, before I had properly fixed the question, so I posted an edit after you had posted your response. From your video, I understand that a response on the order of 0 to 1 relative to need defines naturen while >1 to 1.5 defines instinct, and 1.5 to 3 defines intellen, so the person who eats only to the level needed is showing naturen, while eating half as much again as is needed is instinct, but eating twice as much as needed would be intellen, so my hypothetical person eating twice as much as needed is indeed suffering an intelligence problem.

How do we classify someone who eats four times as much as is needed?

Thank you for the question. If you go back again to OP. you will see that the universal definition (and only one scientific definition) of intelligence is

Intelligence is a principle...(continue the rest at OP)..

Any agnet who will be using intelligence as principle will see to it that this principekl will be used for succcess, life, survoval and existence. (Read again the OP for the definitioon)


Now, eating is one part of an action or phenomenon in nature...but if an agent (the eater) will use intelligence, he/she will see to it that he/she will use the principle for intelligence. As I said that he or she will eat to live, to succeed or to survive.

If he/she eats to die or to get a stomach-ache, then, it is failure...thus..not intelligence since intelligence has always a limit ..

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,21:05   

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 02 2015,20:55)
Sorry, you answered impressively quickly, before I had properly fixed the question, so I posted an edit after you had posted your response. From your video, I understand that a response on the order of 0 to 1 relative to need defines naturen while >1 to 1.5 defines instinct, and 1.5 to 3 defines intellen, so the person who eats only to the level needed is showing naturen, while eating half as much again as is needed is instinct, but eating twice as much as needed would be intellen, so my hypothetical person eating twice as much as needed is indeed suffering an intelligence problem.

How do we classify someone who eats four times as much as is needed?

Thank you for the question. If you go back again to OP, you will see that the universal definition (and only one scientific definition) of intelligence is

Intelligence is a principle...(continue the rest at OP)..

Any agent who will be using intelligence as principle will see to it that this principle will be used for success, life, survival and existence. (Read again the OP for the definition)


Now, eating is one part of an action or phenomenon in nature...but if an agent (the eater) will use intelligence, he/she will see to it that he/she will use the principle for intelligence. As I said that he or she will eat to live, to succeed or to survive.

If he/she eats to die or to get a stomach-ache, then, it is failure...thus..not intelligence since intelligence has always a limit and intelligence is always for success, life, survival and existence..

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1772
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,21:27   

Your video puts the lower limit of intellen at >1.5 and infers an upper limit, but your text simply identifies intellen's lower limit  at 1.  This leaves me unclear about the details.  Also, thank you, thank you for your responses, but was the double response intended to be a subtle demonstration of greater intelligence in action by virtue of being twice the response that was actually needed rather than just what was needed, or am I reading too much into it?

You said that "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."  I'm a little unclear as to why a ratio of 2 should be asymmetrical, and why if the wisest diet is eating exactly 100% of what is needed and neither more nor less, why that wouldn't involve more intellen than a less optimal diet that would inherently do a poorer job of reinforcing survival, existence, and success.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,21:42   

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 02 2015,21:27)
Your video puts the lower limit of intellen at >1.5 and infers an upper limit, but your text simply identifies intellen's lower limit  at 1.  This leaves me unclear about the details.  Also, thank you, thank you for your responses, but was the double response intended to be a subtle demonstration of greater intelligence in action by virtue of being twice the response that was actually needed rather than just what was needed, or am I reading too much into it?

You said that "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."  I'm a little unclear as to why a ratio of 2 should be asymmetrical, and why if the wisest diet is eating exactly 100% of what is needed and neither more nor less, why that wouldn't involve more intellen than a less optimal diet that would inherently do a poorer job of reinforcing survival, existence, and success.

Sorry if I have a typographical error. Intellen has always a min limit of 1.5 and max limit of 3.

Double response?? LOL! I thought that I've already edited my first reply to you but when I reread it again, some parts were not yet edited. So I've just reposted the corrected reply...not an intellen anyway!  Lol! ohhh...probably intellen since I made a 2nd try?? Lol!

Assymemtrical is always solutions are greater than problem, but within the limit/range. In 2, it means two solutions (S) to a single problem (P)...

Diet?? Well, as I said that any agent will make any goal with respect to eating.. no problem.

But the universal intelligence is always being used for life, success, survival and existence since these four are identical.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2838
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,22:49   

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 02 2015,18:55)
How do we classify someone who eats four times as much as is needed?

JoeG.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
QED



Posts: 41
Joined: July 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,00:42   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,19:54)
Quote (QED @ Oct. 02 2015,16:39)
MrIntelligentDesign, I have a few questions...

1) This has been your answer to those who question your ideas:

"You don't really know the nature and meaning of "intelligence". If you think my science is wrong, just make an experiment showing that I am wrong and publish it anywhere and let us compare. I DEMAND AN EXPERIMENT if you think that I am incorrect in science. If you are scientifically correct, I will delete all my science books. If not, then, you are only spamming my science book."

Do you really not understand what science is or how it works? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus is on you to provide experiments that demonstrate your ideas. Can I DEMAND an experiment from you showing you are right, please? Get it through established scientific peer-review and published in a respected journal? Not a "thought" experiment. An actual material-based hypothesis, experiment, and rational conclusion that supports your ideas?

2) Think back to a time when you became convinced that ToE was incorrect. What was the motivation, the moment of enlightenment, the epiphany that steered you so confidently on your alternate path?

3) Could we have moar bible verses, please?

Thank you for your post.

1. I only challenged any person if that person concluded that I am wrong without knowing my new discoveries especially the new and real intelligence. This thread is for all of you to know the real intelligence and I am not expecting that you will accept my new discoveries no matter how hard I try give you evidences.

Maybe the newt two future generations will listen to me but our generation? No, impossible. Just think about Galileo. Thus, don't concluded that I am wrong. Just say I don't know and I am here to help.

2. When I discovered the real intelligence, I was convinced that ToE was totally wrong. My degree in engineering cannot support ToE unless I become insane.

3. LOL!

1. Well, I think you're "incorrect in science" (assuming what you're blithering on about is science), and I DEMAND empirical experiments to provide evidence of what you claim. Pompous hand-waving is not an answer to my question. If you don't expect anyone to accept your "new discoveries" here, are you here simply to shill your books, or to massage your already grandiose ego?

2. So, a civil engineering degree taught you ToE was totally wrong. Does a civil engineering degree in Manila also make one an expert in cell biology, biochemistry, geology, and paleontology? How exactly did a degree completely unrelated to the biological sciences show you ToE is wrong? If you think your education actually did threaten to make you insane, just maybe that "insanity" that frightens you is from trying to juggle material notions with those more supernatural. Come on, even the Pope accepts ToE.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,00:54   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:32)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 02 2015,20:27)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:21)

No, it is called a "response". Trying to appeal to an editor's better nature doesn't turn the process into an appeal.

Well, but Nature Journal has an APPEAL system...

and I don't care since I've already finished writing my science book about peer-review and its documentation and I am publishing it today in Amazon as e-book.

The appeal process at Nature is for attempting to have an editorial decision to decline publication re-examined.

Not getting published in Nature is by far the most common outcome for any submission to Nature. Does your book take into account volume of submissions and effective bandwidth of the publication channel?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,01:49   

Quote (QED @ Oct. 03 2015,00:42)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 02 2015,19:54]
1. Well, I think you're "incorrect in science" (assuming what you're blithering on about is science), and I DEMAND empirical experiments to provide evidence of what you claim. Pompous hand-waving is not an answer to my question. If you don't expect anyone to accept your "new discoveries" here, are you here simply to shill your books, or to massage your already grandiose ego?

2. So, a civil engineering degree taught you ToE was totally wrong. Does a civil engineering degree in Manila also make one an expert in cell biology, biochemistry, geology, and paleontology? How exactly did a degree completely unrelated to the biological sciences show you ToE is wrong? If you think your education actually did threaten to make you insane, just maybe that "insanity" that frightens you is from trying to juggle material notions with those more supernatural. Come on, even the Pope accepts ToE.

1. I have been giving you empirical evidences on how nature and reality works and how I derived intelligence. I even had given you this obvious empirical evidence: eat when you are hungry. That is I think the most obvious empirical evidence on how we categorize intellen to naturen. But you did not even get it.

I don't hand-wave since we cannot compute or calculate anything in science if we do that.

I expect that people will not accept me. Ogh my goodenss, It will take time since most of my critics don't really do science but religious act. I wrote them in science books as documentary for me so that I could not forget especially when I attempted for Peer-Review. I wrote so that those info will be available for public. They could take them or leave them. But to leave is fatal to them since they will die without knowing the real intelligence.

2. When you know how to build a structure, you can see how any structure will behave. In engineering, we know how any structures behave, how to design them, how to calculate structurally, how to demolish them, how to repair them and how to replace them. And since biological structures are not dissimilar to our human structural structures, then, a real engineer could easily know how  biological structures will behave in a certain conditions.

But one thing that separate me from all other engineering degree holders around the world is that I discovered the real intelligence. This nailed everything since intelligence is being used to make X or to let X to exist. Thus, my discoveries comprise almost all parts of our lives, even science, even religion and even business or sports. name it and those is part of intelligence in the topic of origin and cause & effect. ...they all agree with intelligence.

Thus, I wrote many science books.

Cell biology, biochemistry, geology, and paleontology? If you don't use the real intelligence, you cannot explain why cell, for example, must have RNA and DNA...but if we used intelligence, you will see that both RNA and DNA are needed..

There are so much to discuss but if you are really willing to learn more, you can just read my science books and see how nature/reality behaves and open your eyes..

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,01:52   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2015,00:54)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:32)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 02 2015,20:27)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:21)

No, it is called a "response". Trying to appeal to an editor's better nature doesn't turn the process into an appeal.

Well, but Nature Journal has an APPEAL system...

and I don't care since I've already finished writing my science book about peer-review and its documentation and I am publishing it today in Amazon as e-book.

The appeal process at Nature is for attempting to have an editorial decision to decline publication re-examined.

Not getting published in Nature is by far the most common outcome for any submission to Nature. Does your book take into account volume of submissions and effective bandwidth of the publication channel?

I don't care about Nature Journal now. I had already finished my science book about Peer-Review and its documentation  and ready to be published...

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,04:46   

Quote
Now, eating is one part of an action or phenomenon in nature...but if an agent (the eater) will use intelligence, he/she will see to it that he/she will use the principle for intelligence. As I said that he or she will eat to live, to succeed or to survive.

If he/she eats to die or to get a stomach-ache, then, it is failure...thus..not intelligence since intelligence has always a limit ..


What about when someone eats just becaue he loves the taste of food?  I can eat as much as I like without getting fat or obese, I am just skin and bones. How does that fit your theory?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,04:51   

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 03 2015,04:46)
Quote
Now, eating is one part of an action or phenomenon in nature...but if an agent (the eater) will use intelligence, he/she will see to it that he/she will use the principle for intelligence. As I said that he or she will eat to live, to succeed or to survive.

If he/she eats to die or to get a stomach-ache, then, it is failure...thus..not intelligence since intelligence has always a limit ..


What about when someone eats just becaue he loves the taste of food?  I can eat as much as I like without getting fat or obese, I am just skin and bones. How does that fit your theory?

Well, if you do it for life, success and survival...then, you are an IA. But if you do it just to satisfy your craving of tongue, I think it is naturen.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 458
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,05:18   

Quote
If you don't use the real intelligence, you cannot explain why cell, for example, must have RNA and DNA...but if we used intelligence, you will see that both RNA and DNA are needed..


It looks like a variation on Gaulin's "molecular intelligence" to me. Is it?

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,05:30   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 03 2015,05:18)
Quote
If you don't use the real intelligence, you cannot explain why cell, for example, must have RNA and DNA...but if we used intelligence, you will see that both RNA and DNA are needed..


It looks like a variation on Gaulin's "molecular intelligence" to me. Is it?

No, it is not since Gary had no clue on the real intelligence. I've been asking him to define "intelligence" so that I could follow his explanation.

Remember that there is only one intelligence...mine or nothing...

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,05:40   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,01:52)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2015,00:54)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:32)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 02 2015,20:27)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:21)

No, it is called a "response". Trying to appeal to an editor's better nature doesn't turn the process into an appeal.

Well, but Nature Journal has an APPEAL system...

and I don't care since I've already finished writing my science book about peer-review and its documentation and I am publishing it today in Amazon as e-book.

The appeal process at Nature is for attempting to have an editorial decision to decline publication re-examined.

Not getting published in Nature is by far the most common outcome for any submission to Nature. Does your book take into account volume of submissions and effective bandwidth of the publication channel?

I don't care about Nature Journal now. I had already finished my science book about Peer-Review and its documentation  and ready to be published...

"Does your book take into account volume of submissions and effective bandwidth of the publication channel?"

The question is generic, not specifically about "Nature". You didn't answer it.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Amadan



Posts: 1334
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,09:26   

A traveller from the city was expounding upon matters philosophical in the teahouse in Mullah Nasruddin's village. The Mullah politely inquired: "Great sir, how do you know the truth of these deep thoughts? What proof do you bring?"

The traveller reached into his expensive robe and pulled out a book, which he flung onto the table with a triumphant thump.

"There is my proof! It is all in there! And what is more, I myself wrote it!"

The hush descended on the teahouse as the villagers respectfully peered at the volume on the table. Few had seen a book, let alone knew what to do with one.

Chastened, Nasruddin withdrew from the teahouse and the stranger huffily returned to his peroration. But a few minutes later, Nasruddin came back in.

"Great sir! This grubby tea-house is an unworthy setting for such high-minded ideas! I invite you to resume your discourse at my palace, where the fountains in the courtyard will delight your senses and the marble walls will ring to your declamations!"

As one, the villagers laughed and shouted abuse at Nasruddin, whose mud hut was too humble to be dignified with the term humble. "And when did you came by this palace, oh prince?" called out one, to the roared approval of the assembly.

Nasruddin slammed a brick down upon the table and shouted "There is your proof! And I built it myself!"

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,10:18   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,21:02)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 02 2015,08:41)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,05:55)
   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,03:10)
Edgar Postrado said:

"ME: Because they talk natural phenomenon when they talked about intelligence."

So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?

You ask us if we understand your OP, but what's there to understand? About all you've done so far is assert some arrogant claims without any evidence and a coherent explanation to support whatever it is that you're claiming. Apparently English isn't your main language and I'm trying to not hold that against you but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you're saying. And, you really should quit beating around the bush and get to the point.

You're pushing 'intelligent design'. How do you define 'intelligent design'? What evidence and coherent explanation do you have that supports the how, when, where, and why of 'intelligent design' by 'the designer'? And who or what is 'the designer'?

1. So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?
ME: No. Since they are both existing in the whole natural realm but in the entire natural realm, there are natural phenomena or naturen and intelligent phenomena or intellen.

...

Here is a good example of where and how you go so far off the rails the train isn't even visible.  I've italicized the crucial first question and bolded your response.

Intelligence is not a supernatural phenomenon.  We understand and agree.
Intelligence exists as part of the natural realm.  We understand and agree.
And yet somehow you bifurcate natural phenomena, which include intelligence, from the phenomenon of 'the natural'.
We understand and we disagree strenuously.  The stance is incoherent, illogical, insane.
You have a superset/subset relationship, a part/whole relationship where you now want to assert a disjunction between the superset and the set, between the part and the whole.
This is all one needs to see to know that your views are incoherent.  You violate the meanings of fundamental terms, you abuse fundamental concepts and you get them dreadfully wrong in support of whatever perverse notions about an undefined 'intelligence' you've dreamed up.
You then proceed to assert that you have explained this undefined phenomenon.
Claiming that it is part of the superset and yet not part of the superset, it is both a part of a whole and not a part of a whole is literally insane.
Do you see where you've gone wrong?
Or do we have to keep explaining this?

LOL!

I am not talking about superset and set...since "existence" of any X is a set...a universal set.

For example, if an agent would like X to exist, how does this agent do it?

That agent uses intelligence, since intelligence is success and success is survival and existence. Failure is non-intelligence, thus, no existence.

Thus, existence is only one set, a universal set, thus, intelligence is always used for universal application.

Now, use X = cosmos, or particles, or species, or PC, or bike, or mountain, or anything...and you will see that the existence of any X uses the universal principle of intelligence.

Thus, your post is wrong.

Yes, you are in fact talking about sets/supersets -- at least in the relatively informal sense.
Your assertion "since 'existence' of any X is a set...a universal set." is both incorrect and incoherent.
You start your discussion far too encumbered by assumptions.  What agent?  How do you know this is agency at work rather than something else (whatever it is you contrast to agency)?
'Intelligence is success'?  Idiotic.  That would make rainfall intelligent, since rainfall is success at cycling water from the atmosphere to liquid on the surface.  Evaporation would be intelligent since evaporation is success at cycling water from liquid to gas form.
You render the word meaningless with your "examples" and your casual use of "is".
You manage to use the phrase "the universal principle of intelligence" without ever providing it any meaning.
Intelligence is not universal, for you identify it in contrast to something else, "naturen" apparently.
Your ability work with set theory and set theoretic principles is worse than your English.  Please stop.  You are getting it terribly wrong.
One trivial example -- "existence is only one set" followed by enumeration of a number of other sets, which are neither universal nor disjoint from existence.  Many sets, not just "existence".  I'll grant you the trivially true notion that everything that exists does so as a subset of existence, but that is hardly a new or unique insight.
So, my post is not wrong, your "refutation" is incoherent and irrelevant.

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for any entity, process, or event to be considered intelligent?
Is intelligence a natural phenomenon?
If so, why do you contrast 'intellen' and 'naturen'?

Your work is not even wrong -- it is neither clear nor coherent enough to rise to the level of wrong.
Try better.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,12:48   

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 03 2015,09:26)
A traveller from the city was expounding upon matters philosophical in the teahouse in Mullah Nasruddin's village. The Mullah politely inquired: "Great sir, how do you know the truth of these deep thoughts? What proof do you bring?"

The traveller reached into his expensive robe and pulled out a book, which he flung onto the table with a triumphant thump.

"There is my proof! It is all in there! And what is more, I myself wrote it!"

The hush descended on the teahouse as the villagers respectfully peered at the volume on the table. Few had seen a book, let alone knew what to do with one.

Chastened, Nasruddin withdrew from the teahouse and the stranger huffily returned to his peroration. But a few minutes later, Nasruddin came back in.

"Great sir! This grubby tea-house is an unworthy setting for such high-minded ideas! I invite you to resume your discourse at my palace, where the fountains in the courtyard will delight your senses and the marble walls will ring to your declamations!"

As one, the villagers laughed and shouted abuse at Nasruddin, whose mud hut was too humble to be dignified with the term humble. "And when did you came by this palace, oh prince?" called out one, to the roared approval of the assembly.

Nasruddin slammed a brick down upon the table and shouted "There is your proof! And I built it myself!"

So???

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,13:07   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 03 2015,10:18)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 02 2015,21:02]
Yes, you are in fact talking about sets/supersets -- at least in the relatively informal sense.
Your assertion "since 'existence' of any X is a set...a universal set." is both incorrect and incoherent.
You start your discussion far too encumbered by assumptions.  What agent?  How do you know this is agency at work rather than something else (whatever it is you contrast to agency)?
'Intelligence is success'?  Idiotic.  That would make rainfall intelligent, since rainfall is success at cycling water from the atmosphere to liquid on the surface.  Evaporation would be intelligent since evaporation is success at cycling water from liquid to gas form.
You render the word meaningless with your "examples" and your casual use of "is".
You manage to use the phrase "the universal principle of intelligence" without ever providing it any meaning.
Intelligence is not universal, for you identify it in contrast to something else, "naturen" apparently.
Your ability work with set theory and set theoretic principles is worse than your English.  Please stop.  You are getting it terribly wrong.
One trivial example -- "existence is only one set" followed by enumeration of a number of other sets, which are neither universal nor disjoint from existence.  Many sets, not just "existence".  I'll grant you the trivially true notion that everything that exists does so as a subset of existence, but that is hardly a new or unique insight.
So, my post is not wrong, your "refutation" is incoherent and irrelevant.

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for any entity, process, or event to be considered intelligent?
Is intelligence a natural phenomenon?
If so, why do you contrast 'intellen' and 'naturen'?

Your work is not even wrong -- it is neither clear nor coherent enough to rise to the level of wrong.
Try better.

Yes, you are in fact talking about sets/supersets -- at least in the relatively informal sense.
ME: I do it if I would like to pinpoint any X for consideration or for study of its origin or cause & effect but real intelligence as principle of existing X is always universal..one set only, one approach, universal approach.

It was you who are so confused...but I understand it.
----------------------------------------------------

Your assertion "since 'existence' of any X is a set...a universal set." is both incorrect and incoherent.
You start your discussion far too encumbered by assumptions.  What agent?  How do you know this is agency at work rather than something else (whatever it is you contrast to agency)?
ME: No, I don't think that I'm incoherent. You still did not know it or you just don't want to accept. I understand it.

What agent? Any agent who would like X to exist will surely use intelligence..as I called it "principle of making X". Failure cannot make anything.

How do I know that this agency works? First, be specific in nature. But so that X to exist, any agent will surely use intelligence and we can detect it when this agent (IA) make X since X has always a pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. It is so simple.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

'Intelligence is success'?  Idiotic.  That would make rainfall intelligent, since rainfall is success at cycling water from the atmosphere to liquid on the surface.  Evaporation would be intelligent since evaporation is success at cycling water from liquid to gas form.
ME: Rainfall intelligence?? I said that intelligence is always being used for life, survival, existence and success...and rainfall has no connection with the four. That is why rainfall is naturen.

It is the same also with evaporation...
-------------------------------------------------------------------

You manage to use the phrase "the universal principle of intelligence" without ever providing it any meaning.
Intelligence is not universal, for you identify it in contrast to something else, "naturen" apparently.
ME: No, intelligence is universal since existence (or so that X could exist) is always universal or else there will be no natural realm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
One trivial example -- "existence is only one set" followed by enumeration of a number of other sets, which are neither universal nor disjoint from existence.  Many sets, not just "existence".  I'll grant you the trivially true notion that everything that exists does so as a subset of existence, but that is hardly a new or unique insight.
So, my post is not wrong, your "refutation" is incoherent and irrelevant.
ME: As I said that existence is universal but if we pinpoint any X for study, now we are already suing sub-set...but the principle of making/existing X is always universal....
------------------------------------------------------------------

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for any entity, process, or event to be considered intelligent?
Is intelligence a natural phenomenon?
If so, why do you contrast 'intellen' and 'naturen'?
ME: Condition as a basic is always the asymmetrical phenomenon...there are more but wait for me to share it...

If IA uses intelligence, it is natural for that IA, thus, part of natural phenomenon...but for us who would like to study that X of IA, then, X is intellen.

I contrast the two since they had a dividing line as we detect them as pattern.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Your work is not even wrong -- it is neither clear nor coherent enough to rise to the level of wrong.
Try better.
ME: Of course that my science is not wrong for I will have no nerve to write science books. I wrote 6 science books and I am just sharing you maybe 1% or 2% of what you should be knowing...

But I will share more...

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,13:08   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,12:48)
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 03 2015,09:26)
A traveller from the city was expounding upon matters philosophical in the teahouse in Mullah Nasruddin's village. The Mullah politely inquired: "Great sir, how do you know the truth of these deep thoughts? What proof do you bring?"

The traveller reached into his expensive robe and pulled out a book, which he flung onto the table with a triumphant thump.

"There is my proof! It is all in there! And what is more, I myself wrote it!"

The hush descended on the teahouse as the villagers respectfully peered at the volume on the table. Few had seen a book, let alone knew what to do with one.

Chastened, Nasruddin withdrew from the teahouse and the stranger huffily returned to his peroration. But a few minutes later, Nasruddin came back in.

"Great sir! This grubby tea-house is an unworthy setting for such high-minded ideas! I invite you to resume your discourse at my palace, where the fountains in the courtyard will delight your senses and the marble walls will ring to your declamations!"

As one, the villagers laughed and shouted abuse at Nasruddin, whose mud hut was too humble to be dignified with the term humble. "And when did you came by this palace, oh prince?" called out one, to the roared approval of the assembly.

Nasruddin slammed a brick down upon the table and shouted "There is your proof! And I built it myself!"

So???

So you're fucking retarded and there's my proof, and what is more, you yourself wrote it!

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,13:20   

[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,14:07]
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 03 2015,10:18)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,21:02)

Yes, you are in fact talking about sets/supersets -- at least in the relatively informal sense.
Your assertion "since 'existence' of any X is a set...a universal set." is both incorrect and incoherent.
You start your discussion far too encumbered by assumptions.  What agent?  How do you know this is agency at work rather than something else (whatever it is you contrast to agency)?
'Intelligence is success'?  Idiotic.  That would make rainfall intelligent, since rainfall is success at cycling water from the atmosphere to liquid on the surface.  Evaporation would be intelligent since evaporation is success at cycling water from liquid to gas form.
You render the word meaningless with your "examples" and your casual use of "is".
You manage to use the phrase "the universal principle of intelligence" without ever providing it any meaning.
Intelligence is not universal, for you identify it in contrast to something else, "naturen" apparently.
Your ability work with set theory and set theoretic principles is worse than your English.  Please stop.  You are getting it terribly wrong.
One trivial example -- "existence is only one set" followed by enumeration of a number of other sets, which are neither universal nor disjoint from existence.  Many sets, not just "existence".  I'll grant you the trivially true notion that everything that exists does so as a subset of existence, but that is hardly a new or unique insight.
So, my post is not wrong, your "refutation" is incoherent and irrelevant.

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for any entity, process, or event to be considered intelligent?
Is intelligence a natural phenomenon?
If so, why do you contrast 'intellen' and 'naturen'?

Your work is not even wrong -- it is neither clear nor coherent enough to rise to the level of wrong.
Try better.

Yes, you are in fact talking about sets/supersets -- at least in the relatively informal sense.
ME: I do it if I would like to pinpoint any X for consideration or for study of its origin or cause & effect but real intelligence as principle of existing X is always universal..one set only, one approach, universal approach.

It was you who are so confused...but I understand it.
----------------------------------------------------

Your assertion "since 'existence' of any X is a set...a universal set." is both incorrect and incoherent.
You start your discussion far too encumbered by assumptions.  What agent?  How do you know this is agency at work rather than something else (whatever it is you contrast to agency)?
ME: No, I don't think that I'm incoherent. You still did not know it or you just don't want to accept. I understand it.

What agent? Any agent who would like X to exist will surely use intelligence..as I called it "principle of making X". Failure cannot make anything.

How do I know that this agency works? First, be specific in nature. But so that X to exist, any agent will surely use intelligence and we can detect it when this agent (IA) make X since X has always a pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. It is so simple.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

'Intelligence is success'?  Idiotic.  That would make rainfall intelligent, since rainfall is success at cycling water from the atmosphere to liquid on the surface.  Evaporation would be intelligent since evaporation is success at cycling water from liquid to gas form.
ME: Rainfall intelligence?? I said that intelligence is always being used for life, survival, existence and success...and rainfall has no connection with the four. That is why rainfall is naturen.

It is the same also with evaporation...
-------------------------------------------------------------------

You manage to use the phrase "the universal principle of intelligence" without ever providing it any meaning.
Intelligence is not universal, for you identify it in contrast to something else, "naturen" apparently.
ME: No, intelligence is universal since existence (or so that X could exist) is always universal or else there will be no natural realm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
One trivial example -- "existence is only one set" followed by enumeration of a number of other sets, which are neither universal nor disjoint from existence.  Many sets, not just "existence".  I'll grant you the trivially true notion that everything that exists does so as a subset of existence, but that is hardly a new or unique insight.
So, my post is not wrong, your "refutation" is incoherent and irrelevant.
ME: As I said that existence is universal but if we pinpoint any X for study, now we are already suing sub-set...but the principle of making/existing X is always universal....
------------------------------------------------------------------

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for any entity, process, or event to be considered intelligent?
Is intelligence a natural phenomenon?
If so, why do you contrast 'intellen' and 'naturen'?
ME: Condition as a basic is always the asymmetrical phenomenon...there are more but wait for me to share it...

If IA uses intelligence, it is natural for that IA, thus, part of natural phenomenon...but for us who would like to study that X of IA, then, X is intellen.

I contrast the two since they had a dividing line as we detect them as pattern.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Your work is not even wrong -- it is neither clear nor coherent enough to rise to the level of wrong.
Try better.
ME: Of course that my science is not wrong for I will have no nerve to write science books. I wrote 6 science books and I am just sharing you maybe 1% or 2% of what you should be knowing...

But I will share more...

For mercy's  sake -- learn how to use the damn quote function and the editor!

I'm not going to dig through this garbage trying to parse out your incoherent gibberish replies to my points.

Of course you don't think you're 'incoherent'.  Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.  Your "argument" is demonstrably incoherent.  That you reject this is your problem, not ours.

Failure is fully capable of being productive.  Consider sculpture, architecture, path making through forests, countless activities include failure that works.

NO, you most emphatically did not say "intelligence is always being used for life, survival, existence and success..." -- not in the specific remark to which I objected.
If you want to change what you said, fine, but do not charge me with responding to something other than what you said -- least of all when what you said is in the quoted material included in my response.
BTW, if you think rainfall, or evaporation, or the water cycle, have nothing to do with life, survival, existence, and/or success, you clearly know nothing at all about any science.  So how are they not intelligent?  They have success criteria, they satisfy a set of requirements, they are required for life, survival, etc.
You need to lay out the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of 'intelligence'.  You need to lay out the conditions by which we may unambiguously identify candidate things, events, or processes as intelligent or not.
You haven't even begun to produce anything useful in that  regard.

So far, nothing that you have shared is 'worth knowing' let alone something that anyone at all "should be knowing".
Your insistence that intelligence always involves asymmetric phenomena, you are making a host of assumptions that need to be explicitly spelled out and justified.  You also need to note that there are many natural phenomena that are asymmetric or produce asymmetric results.  Consider chemical equilibrium reactions or redox reactions.  Consider the peculiarities of mixtures of water and alcohol in distillation -- it is impossible to boil all the alcohol out of a water-alcohol solution, despite alcohol having a lower boiling point than water.  Where's the symmetry?
Where's the charge symmetry in polar molecules, such as water?  They are asymmetrical, thus intelligence?  Rubbish.

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,13:21   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,13:07)
Rainfall intelligence?? I said that intelligence is always being used for life, survival, existence and success...and rainfall has no connection with the four. That is why rainfall is naturen.

See how fucking retarded you are? You wingnuts can't process more that one concept at a time. You can claim one thing and the opposite within minutes and not even realise how you just debunked yourself.

Remember when you used the ridiculous example of quantum mechanics to "prove" that particles are intellen and must have been designed because of the "asymmetric" nature of matter?

https://youtu.be/rICW28c....4?t=339

Well, you are contradicting yourself, or did you just forget to mention that "intelligence is always being used for life and survival"?

  
JohnW



Posts: 2838
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,13:47   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2015,03:40)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,01:52)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2015,00:54)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:32)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 02 2015,20:27)
     
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:21)

No, it is called a "response". Trying to appeal to an editor's better nature doesn't turn the process into an appeal.

Well, but Nature Journal has an APPEAL system...

and I don't care since I've already finished writing my science book about peer-review and its documentation and I am publishing it today in Amazon as e-book.

The appeal process at Nature is for attempting to have an editorial decision to decline publication re-examined.

Not getting published in Nature is by far the most common outcome for any submission to Nature. Does your book take into account volume of submissions and effective bandwidth of the publication channel?

I don't care about Nature Journal now. I had already finished my science book about Peer-Review and its documentation  and ready to be published...

"Does your book take into account volume of submissions and effective bandwidth of the publication channel?"

The question is generic, not specifically about "Nature". You didn't answer it.

As Dr Elsberry points out, Nature, like other upper-echelon journals, rejects almost all submitted manuscripts.  Are all the other submissions rejected because the editors are incapable of recognizing their brilliance, Mr Postrado?  Or is it just yours?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,14:59   

This seems to be your definition for 'intelligence'.  At least, this is what you presented at the start of this thread.
 
Quote
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.


Here are just a few of the many things wrong with it:

Intelligence is not a principle.  Massively wrong-headed misuse of terminology here, fatally wrong.

'Reinforcing an X to survive, to exist, and to succeed in a certain degree of importance' is incoherent, missing needed specifiers, and tightly couples intelligence not just to life, living things, but to the activities of a living thing that are directly related to survival, existence, and "success".  It's that last one that badly needs specifiers, qualifiers, and expansion.  

'Always acts on asymmetrical phenomenon' is incorrect (the word you want is 'phenomena').  But worse, it is useless without specification of asymmetrical with respect to what?  As noted previously, the charge distribution on polar molecules is asymmetrical.  The power balance between, say, the US and Albania, is asymmetrical.  Each party in any (free) economic exchange benefits and such benefits may appear asymmetrical to any outside observer.  Indeed, the benefits must be seen as asymmetrical to the participants in the exchange or the exchange would not have occurred.  We give up something we value  less in exchange for something we value more.  Yet our respective evaluations are not just asymmetric, they are opposed, and thus we exchange, improving both of our situations.
Hydrogen and hydroxide ions do the same in water solutions, billions of times per second.
All ionic chemical reactions require a charge asymmetry between the neutral atom and the ion form, and between the charges on the particles which interact.

Symmetry/asymmetry of phenomena within a larger context is not a differentiator of intelligent versus unintelligent phenomena.  It is not a differentiator of anything other than symmetry and only  for the single axis of proposed symmetry is being evaluated.

So, your "definition" is wrong.
As well as useless.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1334
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,16:12   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,18:48)
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 03 2015,09:26)
A traveller from the city was expounding upon matters philosophical in the teahouse in Mullah Nasruddin's village. The Mullah politely inquired: "Great sir, how do you know the truth of these deep thoughts? What proof do you bring?"

The traveller reached into his expensive robe and pulled out a book, which he flung onto the table with a triumphant thump.

"There is my proof! It is all in there! And what is more, I myself wrote it!"

The hush descended on the teahouse as the villagers respectfully peered at the volume on the table. Few had seen a book, let alone knew what to do with one.

Chastened, Nasruddin withdrew from the teahouse and the stranger huffily returned to his peroration. But a few minutes later, Nasruddin came back in.

"Great sir! This grubby tea-house is an unworthy setting for such high-minded ideas! I invite you to resume your discourse at my palace, where the fountains in the courtyard will delight your senses and the marble walls will ring to your declamations!"

As one, the villagers laughed and shouted abuse at Nasruddin, whose mud hut was too humble to be dignified with the term humble. "And when did you came by this palace, oh prince?" called out one, to the roared approval of the assembly.

Nasruddin slammed a brick down upon the table and shouted "There is your proof! And I built it myself!"

So???



--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
QED



Posts: 41
Joined: July 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,16:44   

[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,01:49]
Quote (QED @ Oct. 03 2015,00:42)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,19:54)

1. Well, I think you're "incorrect in science" (assuming what you're blithering on about is science), and I DEMAND empirical experiments to provide evidence of what you claim. Pompous hand-waving is not an answer to my question. If you don't expect anyone to accept your "new discoveries" here, are you here simply to shill your books, or to massage your already grandiose ego?

2. So, a civil engineering degree taught you ToE was totally wrong. Does a civil engineering degree in Manila also make one an expert in cell biology, biochemistry, geology, and paleontology? How exactly did a degree completely unrelated to the biological sciences show you ToE is wrong? If you think your education actually did threaten to make you insane, just maybe that "insanity" that frightens you is from trying to juggle material notions with those more supernatural. Come on, even the Pope accepts ToE.

1. I have been giving you empirical evidences on how nature and reality works and how I derived intelligence. I even had given you this obvious empirical evidence: eat when you are hungry. That is I think the most obvious empirical evidence on how we categorize intellen to naturen. But you did not even get it.

I don't hand-wave since we cannot compute or calculate anything in science if we do that.

I expect that people will not accept me. Ogh my goodenss, It will take time since most of my critics don't really do science but religious act. I wrote them in science books as documentary for me so that I could not forget especially when I attempted for Peer-Review. I wrote so that those info will be available for public. They could take them or leave them. But to leave is fatal to them since they will die without knowing the real intelligence.

2. When you know how to build a structure, you can see how any structure will behave. In engineering, we know how any structures behave, how to design them, how to calculate structurally, how to demolish them, how to repair them and how to replace them. And since biological structures are not dissimilar to our human structural structures, then, a real engineer could easily know how  biological structures will behave in a certain conditions.

But one thing that separate me from all other engineering degree holders around the world is that I discovered the real intelligence. This nailed everything since intelligence is being used to make X or to let X to exist. Thus, my discoveries comprise almost all parts of our lives, even science, even religion and even business or sports. name it and those is part of intelligence in the topic of origin and cause & effect. ...they all agree with intelligence.

Thus, I wrote many science books.

Cell biology, biochemistry, geology, and paleontology? If you don't use the real intelligence, you cannot explain why cell, for example, must have RNA and DNA...but if we used intelligence, you will see that both RNA and DNA are needed..

There are so much to discuss but if you are really willing to learn more, you can just read my science books and see how nature/reality behaves and open your eyes..

Let me be the first in your world to tell you, biological entities are dissimilar to buildings and bridges, so different that if you can't see that, you're willfully delusional. An engineer, by mean of his training, does not know how biological systems will behave. So easily equating a bridge to a complex biological system is ignorant, arrogant, and insulting to those who have spent their life's work studying living systems. And enough of the crap that we need to live in your fantasy world to know anything, to use "real intelligence".

Why can't you just admit your real motivation?

WHO is the grand designer of all living things?

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,17:47   

I can't believe I did this but I watched your video to the end.

Let's apply your "real intelligence" bullshit to your own claims:

You say that Jesus Christ is dual in nature, hence asymmetrical, hence it must be intellen or intelligently designed.
But Jesus and God are the same thing, so it follows that God was intelligently designed

Who designed your designer?

Your only alternative is symmetry, which you define as "naturen" or produced by nature. So your own "theory" excludes the possibility of anything that's not either designed (created) or produced by nature. That excludes your eternal God you dimwit.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot. Now that you yourself applied your own crap "theory" to Christ, you can't even resort to special pleading and claim that none of that applies to God.

Epic fail Edgar, epic fail

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,19:51   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 03 2015,13:20)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,14:07]
For mercy's  sake -- learn how to use the damn quote function and the editor!

I'm not going to dig through this garbage trying to parse out your incoherent gibberish replies to my points.

Of course you don't think you're 'incoherent'.  Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.  Your "argument" is demonstrably incoherent.  That you reject this is your problem, not ours.

Failure is fully capable of being productive.  Consider sculpture, architecture, path making through forests, countless activities include failure that works.

NO, you most emphatically did not say "intelligence is always being used for life, survival, existence and success..." -- not in the specific remark to which I objected.
If you want to change what you said, fine, but do not charge me with responding to something other than what you said -- least of all when what you said is in the quoted material included in my response.
BTW, if you think rainfall, or evaporation, or the water cycle, have nothing to do with life, survival, existence, and/or success, you clearly know nothing at all about any science.  So how are they not intelligent?  They have success criteria, they satisfy a set of requirements, they are required for life, survival, etc.
You need to lay out the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of 'intelligence'.  You need to lay out the conditions by which we may unambiguously identify candidate things, events, or processes as intelligent or not.
You haven't even begun to produce anything useful in that  regard.

So far, nothing that you have shared is 'worth knowing' let alone something that anyone at all "should be knowing".
Your insistence that intelligence always involves asymmetric phenomena, you are making a host of assumptions that need to be explicitly spelled out and justified.  You also need to note that there are many natural phenomena that are asymmetric or produce asymmetric results.  Consider chemical equilibrium reactions or redox reactions.  Consider the peculiarities of mixtures of water and alcohol in distillation -- it is impossible to boil all the alcohol out of a water-alcohol solution, despite alcohol having a lower boiling point than water.  Where's the symmetry?
Where's the charge symmetry in polar molecules, such as water?  They are asymmetrical, thus intelligence?  Rubbish.

I don't have longer time today but I have to share this.

YOU DON'T YET have no idea of what I've discovered..but it is god that you try to comprehend...

Later on, you will do it..

We will discuss later but your problem is how to apply the real intelligence and you are very confused...

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

From one of my science books, "The New Intelligent Design <id>, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down"..


SECTION 17.
HOW TO “INTELLIGENCE”



P1/P10Now that we had already discussed Mathematics of intelligence for Intelligent Design <id>, it is now time for us to know how we can use “intelligence” in reality. I put this topic here since I believed that we will never fully understand intelligence if we neglect Mathematics. In addition, we will never fully understand completely the natural realm if we neglect the topic of “intelligence”. So, let us roll. Let us “do intelligence”.
P2First, let us study the obvious objects (X). “Why we consider PCs or computers are intelligently designed objects (intellen)?” In our present time, we know that computers are being produced or designed by people who are using the knowledge of computing and intelligence. Thus, we agree that computers are intelligently designed objects. PCs are all intelligently designed objects, an intellen. It is so obvious and it is so straightforward. By using the principles of Intelligent Design <id> on “HOW TO ‘INTELLIGENCE’”, the features, accompanied in the finished products of PCs that we normally see, are all “supports or reinforcements” to the term (that we normally use as) “PCs”. If we use mathematics, Intelligent Design <id> predicts that if we could find a minimum of three features (for perfect intelligence) with respect to the term “PC”, then, that PC is considered an intellen. If the features exceed three (3), then the PC is not only intellen but also an important intellen. Thus, X is PCs, and the X’s are the features of PCs – an asymmetrical phenomenon. Take note very carefully, that we could easily categorize and recognize PCs as intellen, since we are directly dealing with PCs for almost every day. We knew how and who made those PCs, thus, our categorization is always correct and scientific;
P3Second, let us study the obscure objects (X). I called them “obscure” since those objects are very hard to be detected and yet we deal with them directly. In addition, humans did not made/created/designed them since they are already existing before humans exist. The two examples are (in biology) life and the living organisms, and in physics or cosmology, the universe. Intelligent Design <id> had been claiming that “life” and “living organisms” are intelligently designed since “life” and its “support mechanisms” are detected. We could also detect and see that all living organisms are intelligently designed since they also have the same pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. The pattern is: X = living organisms, X’ = components or structures of a living organisms. The universe is considered an intellen since Intelligent Design <id> had detected that matters have anti-matters, and particles have a dual nature – an unseeming properties if the universe is a naturen. As I said earlier, that if we include Mathematics, Intelligent Design <id> predicts that if the universe is intellen, we can find 2 or more X’ for the existence of physical universe. One X’ will be the existence of matter and anti-mater, the other X’ is the duality of particle, and the other X’ will be the existence of direction. If we study the universe further, we can add more X’. Thus, the universe is considered an intellen. It would the same to the living organisms. The presence of eyes, of ears, of feet, of sensory systems, of pain, etc are all X’ to the existence of living organisms. X’ in living organisms exceeds more than three (since three is considered a perfect intelligent, and more than three is considered important), thus, living organisms are not only intellen but also an important intellen;
P4Third, let us study the operose objects (X). I called them “operose” objects since it would take a keen and thorough scientific study of those objects in knowing if those objects are intellen or naturen. One example is, a "mountain", any mountain. If someone will ask, “Is this mountain intellen or naturen?” The question may seem absurd but since Intelligent Design <id> had claimed that <id> could categorize all X in the universe, then, <id> must do it. To solve this unseemingly weird question, (and if you would like to try this to any X that you want to know), the clues are in the definition of intelligence and the principles of intelligence. Here is again the definition of intelligence:

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.

P5Here is again the list of the principles of intelligence that Intelligent Design <id> had discovered and that had been using in this book and in reality.
Principle 1. The Principle of Asymmetry
Principle 2. The Principle of Reinforcement or Support
Principle 3. The Principle of Importance
Principle 4. The Principle of Simultaneity of or in Time
Principle 5. The Principle of Applied Knowledge
Principle 6. The Principle of Success or Independence
Principle 7. The Principle of Existence, Survival, Success, and Life
Principle 8. The Principle of Determinism

P6Intelligence, at least, requires an asymmetrical phenomenon and existence (two principles of intelligence), as criteria or requirements, in knowing X of its origin. Since intelligence deals with asymmetrical phenomenon, we need to know and study which X0 that could threat (asymmetrical phenomenon) the mountain of its existence. I mean, remember this, intelligent agent always apply the principles of intelligence (as enumerated above) in any X for existence, survival, success, or life. Thus, to know if the mountain is intellen, we have to find which X0 that could threat the mountain for non-existence or non-survival (a reversed process). (For reference, please use these variables: X0 here means threat to X. X’ is support to X. X is anything that we would like to study in the whole natural realm) By knowing the X0 that could threat the existence of X (like mountain); we could also find the X’ simultaneously since X’ is a support system to any X for existence. If we could not find X0, or if X0 is vague even though we made an experiment and study, then, the mountain is most certain a naturen.
P7Now, let us take Mt Rushmore as one example.


Figure 13. Mount Rushmore. [59]


P8In the above picture, the “mountain”, as Mt Rushmore (see Figure 13), contained four faces of the former US presidents. These features are X’ to the pattern X + X’. X = faces in the mountain, X’ = are the known faces in history in the mountain. Even though an ordinary person does not recognize the four faces specifically, that person will surely recognize that the carved faces in the rocks are faces of humans. How? By just looking at all directions with respect to the faces, one can surely tell or calculate that the occurrences of possibilities that those are human faces exceed more than three (3). Intelligent Design <id> predicted that if we could find three possibilities that the carved faces in the mountain are real human faces by just looking at the four faces, <id> predicts and categorizes it as intellen. Since we could see directly in all directions that the four faces resembles the faces of human beings, the occurrences of possibilities that those are real human faces will surely exceed three. Then, they are all considered an important intellen, and the mountain (Mt Rushmore) is considered an intellen. However, the existence of Mt Rushmore before the faces were carved is a naturen.
P9Let us use again the “living organism” as one example. I will be using this example because by using a very obvious example, we can easily understand how to use “intelligence” in real applications in real world. We knew that all living organisms have support mechanisms, whether those supports mechanisms are feet, eyes, skin, internal organs, or mind. For example, if we threat those living organisms for non-existence, it is expected that a living organism will somehow defend its existence or life by just negating away to the threat or fight back or any behavior that could save its existence. By including mathematics, if we threat a living organism for non-existence, <id> predicts that we can expect or see that a living organism will surely use its support mechanism (such as defense mechanisms, X’) for existence to counter-measure the threat. By numerically and empirically counting the counter-measures (defense mechanisms, for example), we can know if a living organism is an intellen if the calculated X’ exceeds to 1.5. Thus, in human, if we use human as one example, a human has ears, nose, eyes, hands, feet, mouth. In this example, I enumerated six-support mechanisms of human and since they exceed three, then human is considered an important intellen. I think that you already get the idea that I would like to convey.
P10/P10By experiment in dealing with nature and intelligence, I think that we can master this technique and use it for the advancements of human society toward a better living. After you understand the real intelligence and the contents of this book, you can now see how these discoveries from Intelligent Design <id> affect many fields in science such as in Biology, Physics, Philosophy, Psychology and so forth. You can now understand all of my remaining published science books that discussed these following fields in science.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,19:54   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,17:47)
I can't believe I did this but I watched your video to the end.

Let's apply your "real intelligence" bullshit to your own claims:

You say that Jesus Christ is dual in nature, hence asymmetrical, hence it must be intellen or intelligently designed.
But Jesus and God are the same thing, so it follows that God was intelligently designed

Who designed your designer?

Your only alternative is symmetry, which you define as "naturen" or produced by nature. So your own "theory" excludes the possibility of anything that's not either designed (created) or produced by nature. That excludes your eternal God you dimwit.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot. Now that you yourself applied your own crap "theory" to Christ, you can't even resort to special pleading and claim that none of that applies to God.

Epic fail Edgar, epic fail

That is a good question for the IA of whole existence ..but you know..

intelligence/intelligence is a symmetry...

Which means, the origin of intelligence which is the origin of IA or God or Jesus Christ is infinite...uncreated since it is symmetry..

Did you get it???

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,19:56   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,13:21)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,13:07)
Rainfall intelligence?? I said that intelligence is always being used for life, survival, existence and success...and rainfall has no connection with the four. That is why rainfall is naturen.

See how fucking retarded you are? You wingnuts can't process more that one concept at a time. You can claim one thing and the opposite within minutes and not even realise how you just debunked yourself.

Remember when you used the ridiculous example of quantum mechanics to "prove" that particles are intellen and must have been designed because of the "asymmetric" nature of matter?

https://youtu.be/rICW28c....4?t=339

Well, you are contradicting yourself, or did you just forget to mention that "intelligence is always being used for life and survival"?

Yes, if we use the asymmetrical phenomenon, all particles are intellen since intelligence works in four: success, life, survival and existence...these four are identical...

Thus, I did not even contradict myself...

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,19:57   

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 03 2015,16:12)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,18:48]

So???

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,20:04   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:56)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,13:21)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,13:07)
Rainfall intelligence?? I said that intelligence is always being used for life, survival, existence and success...and rainfall has no connection with the four. That is why rainfall is naturen.

See how fucking retarded you are? You wingnuts can't process more that one concept at a time. You can claim one thing and the opposite within minutes and not even realise how you just debunked yourself.

Remember when you used the ridiculous example of quantum mechanics to "prove" that particles are intellen and must have been designed because of the "asymmetric" nature of matter?

https://youtu.be/rICW28c....4?t=339

Well, you are contradicting yourself, or did you just forget to mention that "intelligence is always being used for life and survival"?

Yes, if we use the asymmetrical phenomenon, all particles are intellen since intelligence works in four: success, life, survival and existence...these four are identical...

Thus, I did not even contradict myself...

Absurd.
Do you even know what 'symmetrical' and 'asymmetrical' mean?
Likewise with 'identical'.

Stop preening and posing and address the issues.

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,20:17   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,19:54)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,17:47)
I can't believe I did this but I watched your video to the end.

Let's apply your "real intelligence" bullshit to your own claims:

You say that Jesus Christ is dual in nature, hence asymmetrical, hence it must be intellen or intelligently designed.
But Jesus and God are the same thing, so it follows that God was intelligently designed

Who designed your designer?

Your only alternative is symmetry, which you define as "naturen" or produced by nature. So your own "theory" excludes the possibility of anything that's not either designed (created) or produced by nature. That excludes your eternal God you dimwit.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot. Now that you yourself applied your own crap "theory" to Christ, you can't even resort to special pleading and claim that none of that applies to God.

Epic fail Edgar, epic fail

That is a good question for the IA of whole existence ..but you know..

intelligence/intelligence is a symmetry...

Which means, the origin of intelligence which is the origin of IA or God or Jesus Christ is infinite...uncreated since it is symmetry..

Did you get it???

No asshole, you (arbitrarily) defined symmetry as "naturen" or natural process:

Quote
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 you claim (without a shred of evidence, of course) that Jeebus is infinite and that symmetry implies infinity. You keep making stuff up as you go, and you keep contradicting yourself

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,20:26   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,19:56)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,13:21)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,13:07)
Rainfall intelligence?? I said that intelligence is always being used for life, survival, existence and success...and rainfall has no connection with the four. That is why rainfall is naturen.

See how fucking retarded you are? You wingnuts can't process more that one concept at a time. You can claim one thing and the opposite within minutes and not even realise how you just debunked yourself.

Remember when you used the ridiculous example of quantum mechanics to "prove" that particles are intellen and must have been designed because of the "asymmetric" nature of matter?

https://youtu.be/rICW28c....4?t=339

Well, you are contradicting yourself, or did you just forget to mention that "intelligence is always being used for life and survival"?

Yes, if we use the asymmetrical phenomenon, all particles are intellen since intelligence works in four: success, life, survival and existence...these four are identical...

Thus, I did not even contradict myself...

So particles are alive? They succeed? they survive?
Of course not, so your crap is debunked.

Bye bye Noble prize! LMFAO

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,20:57   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 03 2015,20:04)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,20:56]
Absurd.
Do you even know what 'symmetrical' and 'asymmetrical' mean?
Likewise with 'identical'.

Stop preening and posing and address the issues.

Of course,I knew those words on the context of my new discoveries..

Thus, I have science and you just cannot accept them..

I don't care...

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,20:59   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,20:17)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,19:54)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,17:47)
I can't believe I did this but I watched your video to the end.

Let's apply your "real intelligence" bullshit to your own claims:

You say that Jesus Christ is dual in nature, hence asymmetrical, hence it must be intellen or intelligently designed.
But Jesus and God are the same thing, so it follows that God was intelligently designed

Who designed your designer?

Your only alternative is symmetry, which you define as "naturen" or produced by nature. So your own "theory" excludes the possibility of anything that's not either designed (created) or produced by nature. That excludes your eternal God you dimwit.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot. Now that you yourself applied your own crap "theory" to Christ, you can't even resort to special pleading and claim that none of that applies to God.

Epic fail Edgar, epic fail

That is a good question for the IA of whole existence ..but you know..

intelligence/intelligence is a symmetry...

Which means, the origin of intelligence which is the origin of IA or God or Jesus Christ is infinite...uncreated since it is symmetry..

Did you get it???

No asshole, you (arbitrarily) defined symmetry as "naturen" or natural process:

Quote
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 you claim (without a shred of evidence, of course) that Jeebus is infinite and that symmetry implies infinity. You keep making stuff up as you go, and you keep contradicting yourself

Yes, I defined naturen as symmetry...thus, when an intelligent agent like me plays fork guitar better than others, then for me, playing a guitar is only a naturen..is that hard to understand?

But for those who can't play, I'm intellen...

So, I'm still right and correct!

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,21:01   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,20:26)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,19:56]
So particles are alive? They succeed? they survive?
Of course not, so your crap is debunked.

Bye bye Noble prize! LMFAO

Particles are not alive but were being used for existence...

and the pattern of asymmetrical is very obvious..

So, I'm still right and scientific.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1199
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,21:01   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:57)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 03 2015,20:04]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:56)

Absurd.
Do you even know what 'symmetrical' and 'asymmetrical' mean?
Likewise with 'identical'.

Stop preening and posing and address the issues.

Of course,I knew those words on the context of my new discoveries..

Thus, I have science and you just cannot accept them..

I don't care...

Humpty-Dumptyism, another common trait in cranks.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,21:03   

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 03 2015,13:47)
[quote=Wesley R. Elsberry,Oct. 03 2015,03:40]
As Dr Elsberry points out, Nature, like other upper-echelon journals, rejects almost all submitted manuscripts.  Are all the other submissions rejected because the editors are incapable of recognizing their brilliance, Mr Postrado?  Or is it just yours?

There must be criteria for rejection. But if the discoveries could turn/revolutionize the whole science and the world, they must be given FIRST priority no matter how long the process is.

Thus, I don't care about those journals...I've already published my Peer-Review documentary..take them or leave them.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,21:07   

Quote (QED @ Oct. 03 2015,16:44)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,01:49]  
Let me be the first in your world to tell you, biological entities are dissimilar to buildings and bridges, so different that if you can't see that, you're willfully delusional. An engineer, by mean of his training, does not know how biological systems will behave. So easily equating a bridge to a complex biological system is ignorant, arrogant, and insulting to those who have spent their life's work studying living systems. And enough of the crap that we need to live in your fantasy world to know anything, to use "real intelligence".

Why can't you just admit your real motivation?

WHO is the grand designer of all living things?

They are all the same structures since they must cope with forces of nature but stay alive/functional...thus, the process of making them and designing those biological structures are part of engineering.

I don't care if you cannot accept that but I cannot allow ToE to be used in engineering. ToE kills. Engineering gives life.


WHO is the grand designer of all living things? The Intelligent Agent.

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,21:20   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:59)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,20:17)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,19:54)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,17:47)
I can't believe I did this but I watched your video to the end.

Let's apply your "real intelligence" bullshit to your own claims:

You say that Jesus Christ is dual in nature, hence asymmetrical, hence it must be intellen or intelligently designed.
But Jesus and God are the same thing, so it follows that God was intelligently designed

Who designed your designer?

Your only alternative is symmetry, which you define as "naturen" or produced by nature. So your own "theory" excludes the possibility of anything that's not either designed (created) or produced by nature. That excludes your eternal God you dimwit.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot. Now that you yourself applied your own crap "theory" to Christ, you can't even resort to special pleading and claim that none of that applies to God.

Epic fail Edgar, epic fail

That is a good question for the IA of whole existence ..but you know..

intelligence/intelligence is a symmetry...

Which means, the origin of intelligence which is the origin of IA or God or Jesus Christ is infinite...uncreated since it is symmetry..

Did you get it???

No asshole, you (arbitrarily) defined symmetry as "naturen" or natural process:

 
Quote
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 you claim (without a shred of evidence, of course) that Jeebus is infinite and that symmetry implies infinity. You keep making stuff up as you go, and you keep contradicting yourself

Yes, I defined naturen as symmetry...thus, when an intelligent agent like me plays fork guitar better than others, then for me, playing a guitar is only a naturen..is that hard to understand?

But for those who can't play, I'm intellen...

So, I'm still right and correct!

What the fuck does any of that have to do with infinity?

Dude, I'm going to organize a Dîner de Cons, and I want you to come. I'm winning by a landslide

  
k.e..



Posts: 3896
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,23:11   

Dîner de Cons Brilliant!!!

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 3896
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,23:19   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,03:51)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 03 2015,13:20]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,14:07)

For mercy's  sake -- learn how to use the damn quote function and the editor!

I'm not going to dig through this garbage trying to parse out your incoherent gibberish replies to my points.

Of course you don't think you're 'incoherent'.  Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.  Your "argument" is demonstrably incoherent.  That you reject this is your problem, not ours.

Failure is fully capable of being productive.  Consider sculpture, architecture, path making through forests, countless activities include failure that works.

NO, you most emphatically did not say "intelligence is always being used for life, survival, existence and success..." -- not in the specific remark to which I objected.
If you want to change what you said, fine, but do not charge me with responding to something other than what you said -- least of all when what you said is in the quoted material included in my response.
BTW, if you think rainfall, or evaporation, or the water cycle, have nothing to do with life, survival, existence, and/or success, you clearly know nothing at all about any science.  So how are they not intelligent?  They have success criteria, they satisfy a set of requirements, they are required for life, survival, etc.
You need to lay out the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of 'intelligence'.  You need to lay out the conditions by which we may unambiguously identify candidate things, events, or processes as intelligent or not.
You haven't even begun to produce anything useful in that  regard.

So far, nothing that you have shared is 'worth knowing' let alone something that anyone at all "should be knowing".
Your insistence that intelligence always involves asymmetric phenomena, you are making a host of assumptions that need to be explicitly spelled out and justified.  You also need to note that there are many natural phenomena that are asymmetric or produce asymmetric results.  Consider chemical equilibrium reactions or redox reactions.  Consider the peculiarities of mixtures of water and alcohol in distillation -- it is impossible to boil all the alcohol out of a water-alcohol solution, despite alcohol having a lower boiling point than water.  Where's the symmetry?
Where's the charge symmetry in polar molecules, such as water?  They are asymmetrical, thus intelligence?  Rubbish.

I don't have longer time today but I have to share this.

YOU DON'T YET have no idea of what I've discovered..but it is god that you try to comprehend...

Later on, you will do it..

We will discuss later but your problem is how to apply the real intelligence and you are very confused...

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

From one of my science books, "The New Intelligent Design <id>, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down"..


SECTION 17.
HOW TO “INTELLIGENCE”



P1/P10Now that we had already discussed Mathematics of intelligence for Intelligent Design <id>, it is now time for us to know how we can use “intelligence” in reality. I put this topic here since I believed that we will never fully understand intelligence if we neglect Mathematics. In addition, we will never fully understand completely the natural realm if we neglect the topic of “intelligence”. So, let us roll. Let us “do intelligence”.
P2First, let us study the obvious objects (X). “Why we consider PCs or computers are intelligently designed objects (intellen)?” In our present time, we know that computers are being produced or designed by people who are using the knowledge of computing and intelligence. Thus, we agree that computers are intelligently designed objects. PCs are all intelligently designed objects, an intellen. It is so obvious and it is so straightforward. By using the principles of Intelligent Design <id> on “HOW TO ‘INTELLIGENCE’”, the features, accompanied in the finished products of PCs that we normally see, are all “supports or reinforcements” to the term (that we normally use as) “PCs”. If we use mathematics, Intelligent Design <id> predicts that if we could find a minimum of three features (for perfect intelligence) with respect to the term “PC”, then, that PC is considered an intellen. If the features exceed three (3), then the PC is not only intellen but also an important intellen. Thus, X is PCs, and the X’s are the features of PCs – an asymmetrical phenomenon. Take note very carefully, that we could easily categorize and recognize PCs as intellen, since we are directly dealing with PCs for almost every day. We knew how and who made those PCs, thus, our categorization is always correct and scientific;
P3Second, let us study the obscure objects (X). I called them “obscure” since those objects are very hard to be detected and yet we deal with them directly. In addition, humans did not made/created/designed them since they are already existing before humans exist. The two examples are (in biology) life and the living organisms, and in physics or cosmology, the universe. Intelligent Design <id> had been claiming that “life” and “living organisms” are intelligently designed since “life” and its “support mechanisms” are detected. We could also detect and see that all living organisms are intelligently designed since they also have the same pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. The pattern is: X = living organisms, X’ = components or structures of a living organisms. The universe is considered an intellen since Intelligent Design <id> had detected that matters have anti-matters, and particles have a dual nature – an unseeming properties if the universe is a naturen. As I said earlier, that if we include Mathematics, Intelligent Design <id> predicts that if the universe is intellen, we can find 2 or more X’ for the existence of physical universe. One X’ will be the existence of matter and anti-mater, the other X’ is the duality of particle, and the other X’ will be the existence of direction. If we study the universe further, we can add more X’. Thus, the universe is considered an intellen. It would the same to the living organisms. The presence of eyes, of ears, of feet, of sensory systems, of pain, etc are all X’ to the existence of living organisms. X’ in living organisms exceeds more than three (since three is considered a perfect intelligent, and more than three is considered important), thus, living organisms are not only intellen but also an important intellen;
P4Third, let us study the operose objects (X). I called them “operose” objects since it would take a keen and thorough scientific study of those objects in knowing if those objects are intellen or naturen. One example is, a "mountain", any mountain. If someone will ask, “Is this mountain intellen or naturen?” The question may seem absurd but since Intelligent Design <id> had claimed that <id> could categorize all X in the universe, then, <id> must do it. To solve this unseemingly weird question, (and if you would like to try this to any X that you want to know), the clues are in the definition of intelligence and the principles of intelligence. Here is again the definition of intelligence:

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.

P5Here is again the list of the principles of intelligence that Intelligent Design <id> had discovered and that had been using in this book and in reality.
Principle 1. The Principle of Asymmetry
Principle 2. The Principle of Reinforcement or Support
Principle 3. The Principle of Importance
Principle 4. The Principle of Simultaneity of or in Time
Principle 5. The Principle of Applied Knowledge
Principle 6. The Principle of Success or Independence
Principle 7. The Principle of Existence, Survival, Success, and Life
Principle 8. The Principle of Determinism

P6Intelligence, at least, requires an asymmetrical phenomenon and existence (two principles of intelligence), as criteria or requirements, in knowing X of its origin. Since intelligence deals with asymmetrical phenomenon, we need to know and study which X0 that could threat (asymmetrical phenomenon) the mountain of its existence. I mean, remember this, intelligent agent always apply the principles of intelligence (as enumerated above) in any X for existence, survival, success, or life. Thus, to know if the mountain is intellen, we have to find which X0 that could threat the mountain for non-existence or non-survival (a reversed process). (For reference, please use these variables: X0 here means threat to X. X’ is support to X. X is anything that we would like to study in the whole natural realm) By knowing the X0 that could threat the existence of X (like mountain); we could also find the X’ simultaneously since X’ is a support system to any X for existence. If we could not find X0, or if X0 is vague even though we made an experiment and study, then, the mountain is most certain a naturen.
P7Now, let us take Mt Rushmore as one example.


Figure 13. Mount Rushmore. [59]


P8In the above picture, the “mountain”, as Mt Rushmore (see Figure 13), contained four faces of the former US presidents. These features are X’ to the pattern X + X’. X = faces in the mountain, X’ = are the known faces in history in the mountain. Even though an ordinary person does not recognize the four faces specifically, that person will surely recognize that the carved faces in the rocks are faces of humans. How? By just looking at all directions with respect to the faces, one can surely tell or calculate that the occurrences of possibilities that those are human faces exceed more than three (3). Intelligent Design <id> predicted that if we could find three possibilities that the carved faces in the mountain are real human faces by just looking at the four faces, <id> predicts and categorizes it as intellen. Since we could see directly in all directions that the four faces resembles the faces of human beings, the occurrences of possibilities that those are real human faces will surely exceed three. Then, they are all considered an important intellen, and the mountain (Mt Rushmore) is considered an intellen. However, the existence of Mt Rushmore before the faces were carved is a naturen.
P9Let us use again the “living organism” as one example. I will be using this example because by using a very obvious example, we can easily understand how to use “intelligence” in real applications in real world. We knew that all living organisms have support mechanisms, whether those supports mechanisms are feet, eyes, skin, internal organs, or mind. For example, if we threat those living organisms for non-existence, it is expected that a living organism will somehow defend its existence or life by just negating away to the threat or fight back or any behavior that could save its existence. By including mathematics, if we threat a living organism for non-existence, <id> predicts that we can expect or see that a living organism will surely use its support mechanism (such as defense mechanisms, X’) for existence to counter-measure the threat. By numerically and empirically counting the counter-measures (defense mechanisms, for example), we can know if a living organism is an intellen if the calculated X’ exceeds to 1.5. Thus, in human, if we use human as one example, a human has ears, nose, eyes, hands, feet, mouth. In this example, I enumerated six-support mechanisms of human and since they exceed three, then human is considered an important intellen. I think that you already get the idea that I would like to convey.
P10/P10By experiment in dealing with nature and intelligence, I think that we can master this technique and use it for the advancements of human society toward a better living. After you understand the real intelligence and the contents of this book, you can now see how these discoveries from Intelligent Design <id> affect many fields in science such as in Biology, Physics, Philosophy, Psychology and so forth. You can now understand all of my remaining published science books that discussed these following fields in science.

May God have mercy on your soul.

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

  
QED



Posts: 41
Joined: July 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,00:00   

[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,21:07]  
Quote (QED @ Oct. 03 2015,16:44)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,01:49)
 
Let me be the first in your world to tell you, biological entities are dissimilar to buildings and bridges, so different that if you can't see that, you're willfully delusional. An engineer, by mean of his training, does not know how biological systems will behave. So easily equating a bridge to a complex biological system is ignorant, arrogant, and insulting to those who have spent their life's work studying living systems. And enough of the crap that we need to live in your fantasy world to know anything, to use "real intelligence".

Why can't you just admit your real motivation?

WHO is the grand designer of all living things?

They are all the same structures since they must cope with forces of nature but stay alive/functional...thus, the process of making them and designing those biological structures are part of engineering.

I don't care if you cannot accept that but I cannot allow ToE to be used in engineering. ToE kills. Engineering gives life.


WHO is the grand designer of all living things? The Intelligent Agent.

Nonliving structures do not behave the same way living structures do. Living structures move, replicate, consume and expend energy, and respond to their environment. You may see the structures themselves as things that are assembled according to what your limited education has taught you, but the act of assembling, who assembles them, and how they behave - the difference between life and nonlife - is not similar at all.

You cannot allow ToE to be used in engineering? Who does that? Look, your education taught you to slap steel, brick, and mortar together to try to build things that hopefully won't collapse and kill people. But sometimes those things do. So, the act of (poor) engineering kills people. ToE is a scientific theory, an explanation of a material biological phenomenon using the most reliable evidence available. It doesn't kill. It doesn't do anything. It attempts to describe what's being done. Are you really this dense, or just making things up as you go?

Please answer the question honestly. Who is the Intelligent Agent? God? Aliens? You?

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,02:00   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,21:20)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,20:59]
What the fuck does any of that have to do with infinity?

Dude, I'm going to organize a Dîner de Cons, and I want you to come. I'm winning by a landslide

Existence follows intelligence and intelligence is always existence, thus, one is the compliment of other.

It means that we will never have existence from the beginning without intelligence, thus, the two must be both existing from infinity since intelligence is an infinite phenomenon.

Thus, if there is IA of Cosmos, it is predicted that this IA is not created but exist from eternity since this IA is the source of both existence and infinity.

Now, apply that to Big Bang and you will know that before the Big Bang, an existence is always needed.

Is that hard to understand? Or hard to accept?

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,02:04   

Quote
May God have mercy on your soul.

'Nuff said.

I only wonder why there are only eight Principles. I can think of many more, like for instance #9. the Principle of Stupidity. It has much in common with Rabidity.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,02:08   

Quote (QED @ Oct. 04 2015,00:00)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,21:07]  
Nonliving structures do not behave the same way living structures do. Living structures move, replicate, consume and expend energy, and respond to their environment. You may see the structures themselves as things that are assembled according to what your limited education has taught you, but the act of assembling, who assembles them, and how they behave - the difference between life and nonlife - is not similar at all.

You cannot allow ToE to be used in engineering? Who does that? Look, your education taught you to slap steel, brick, and mortar together to try to build things that hopefully won't collapse and kill people. But sometimes those things do. So, the act of (poor) engineering kills people. ToE is a scientific theory, an explanation of a material biological phenomenon using the most reliable evidence available. It doesn't kill. It doesn't do anything. It attempts to describe what's being done. Are you really this dense, or just making things up as you go?

Please answer the question honestly. Who is the Intelligent Agent? God? Aliens? You?

Remember that in the whole natural realm, no X has ever been found assembling by itself without any intelligence especially when life, survival, success and existence is in consideration.

Thus, your conclusion that "Living structures move, replicate, consume and expend energy, and respond to their environment. You may see the structures themselves as things that are assembled according to what your limited education has taught you, but the act of assembling, who assembles them, and how they behave - the difference between life and nonlife - is not similar at all." is a religious belief and not even close to science nor reality.

SHOW me one experiment that it is so...

Remember that biological living organisms has goal to protect life and survival, thus, all living organisms don't use evolution but Biological Interrelation, BiTs since BiTs used intelligence whereas ToE uses non-intelligence (dumb/stupidity/insanity). Engineers don't use dumb/stupidity/insanity when designing X, that is for sure UNLESS the engineer is dumb/stupid/insane.

Intelligence is always for life and survival...thus, you are in complete error of reality..

The IA is I don't know but intelligence pinpointedly predicts that this IA must have at least a dual opposite nature...Who will be that Candidate? Choose your pick..

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,02:09   

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 04 2015,02:04)
Quote
May God have mercy on your soul.

'Nuff said.

I only wonder why there are only eight Principles. I can think of many more, like for instance #9. the Principle of Stupidity. It has much in common with Rabidity.

I think that Principle is being used by ToE that is why you are familiar with that principle...LOL!

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,02:10   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 03 2015,21:01)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,20:57]
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 03 2015,20:04)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:56)

Absurd.
Do you even know what 'symmetrical' and 'asymmetrical' mean?
Likewise with 'identical'.

Stop preening and posing and address the issues.

Of course,I knew those words on the context of my new discoveries..

Thus, I have science and you just cannot accept them..

I don't care...

Humpty-Dumptyism, another common trait in cranks.

Just admit that you have no science but religion only...be satisfied with your religion and go away...

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,02:21   

[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,21:03]  
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 03 2015,13:47)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2015,03:40)

As Dr Elsberry points out, Nature, like other upper-echelon journals, rejects almost all submitted manuscripts.  Are all the other submissions rejected because the editors are incapable of recognizing their brilliance, Mr Postrado?  Or is it just yours?

There must be criteria for rejection. But if the discoveries could turn/revolutionize the whole science and the world, they must be given FIRST priority no matter how long the process is.

Thus, I don't care about those journals...I've already published my Peer-Review documentary..take them or leave them.

"Does your book take into account volume of submissions and effective bandwidth of the publication channel?"

This question remains unanswered. The assertion that rejection criteria must exist does not imply that the topic exists in the book, nor the specific elements of such criteria.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,03:06   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 04 2015,02:21)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,21:03]
"Does your book take into account volume of submissions and effective bandwidth of the publication channel?"

This question remains unanswered. The assertion that rejection criteria must exist does not imply that the topic exists in the book, nor the specific elements of such criteria.

I did not submit my book in Nature Journal but manuscript for Peer-Review. I knew that NJ has a lot of submissions but they should be smart enough to distinguish a discovery that could revolutionize the world like mine...

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 458
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,03:10   

I think this is the formula we need here;

Mrintellegentdesign = Gary Gaulin + added arrogance

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,03:15   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 04 2015,03:10)
I think this is the formula we need here;

Mrintellegentdesign = Gary Gaulin + added arrogance

Arrogance? I'm just telling what I've discovered and what I've done and what supposed to do by NJ...

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,04:06   

[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,02:00]
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,21:20)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:59)

What the fuck does any of that have to do with infinity?

Dude, I'm going to organize a Dîner de Cons, and I want you to come. I'm winning by a landslide

Existence follows intelligence and intelligence is always existence, thus, one is the compliment of other.

It means that we will never have existence from the beginning without intelligence, thus, the two must be both existing from infinity since intelligence is an infinite phenomenon.

Thus, if there is IA of Cosmos, it is predicted that this IA is not created but exist from eternity since this IA is the source of both existence and infinity.

Now, apply that to Big Bang and you will know that before the Big Bang, an existence is always needed.

Is that hard to understand? Or hard to accept?

You don't understand that, in order to do actual science, you need a consistent set of rules that can be applied to explain stuff and draw conclusions, and those conclusions should be empirically testeable. I'm not even asking you for evidence here, just testing the consistency of your own "rules":

 
Quote
Existence follows intelligence and intelligence is always existence, thus, one is the compliment of other.


Is this complement thing in any of your books? How come you didn't mention it in your original post here? Maybe because it's an ad-hoc explanation that you just pulled out of your ass to solve the obvious problems with your rules presented to you?

But let's see how that works:

Doesn't existence also follows "naturen"? Don't natural processes also bring things into existence?

 
Quote
It means that we will never have existence from the beginning without intelligence, thus, the two must be both existing from infinity since intelligence is an infinite phenomenon


Well, if "naturen" is also complementary to existence, then you must admit, by your own rules, that "will never have existence from the beginning without nature"

 
Quote
since intelligence is an infinite phenomenon


So you are saying that, when you claimed that playing guitar made you intelligent, that means that you're infinite? That you've been playing guitar from eternity? This is clearly a falsifiable claim.

Of course we all know you're talking about god now, not like you were fooling anyone, but for your rules to be consistent, you don't get to determine what "intelligence" your definitions apply to, unless explicitly stated in your own rules. If you say that intelligence is infinite, then by showing that some intelligence is not infinite (you were born, we can collect evidence for that) then your claim is falsified and your "theory" is wrong.

But of course, if you make an exception for the "original intelligence", the one you're out to prove, then you're guilty of special pleading and your entire argument crumbles

 
Quote
Now, apply that to Big Bang


Why is the Big Bang about life and survival? on what basis do you claim that the Big Bang is not naturen? If your rules where consistent you would be applying them here too. You don't do that, you don't justify why the Big Bang is not "naturen". You're just pontificating and clearly trying (and failing) to prove there is a god.

You fail miserably at pseudo-science and what's worse, at philosophy of religion, because you're just rehashing ancient Aristotelian cause-effect arguments. You're stupid, incoherent and  unoriginal

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,05:08   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,00:00)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 03 2015,21:20]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:59)

What the fuck does any of that have to do with infinity?

Dude, I'm going to organize a Dîner de Cons, and I want you to come. I'm winning by a landslide

Existence follows intelligence and intelligence is always existence, thus, one is the compliment of other.

It means that we will never have existence from the beginning without intelligence, thus, the two must be both existing from infinity since intelligence is an infinite phenomenon.

Thus, if there is IA of Cosmos, it is predicted that this IA is not created but exist from eternity since this IA is the source of both existence and infinity.

Now, apply that to Big Bang and you will know that before the Big Bang, an existence is always needed.

Is that hard to understand? Or hard to accept?

Edgar, if I understand you correctly, you say that there is a difference between natural things (naturen) and intelligently designed things (intellen) but you also say that "Existence follows intelligence and intelligence is always existence". This universe and everything in it exists, so does that mean that this universe and everything in it was/is intelligent or intelligently designed?

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4906
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,05:41   

[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,03:06]
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 04 2015,02:21)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,21:03)

"Does your book take into account volume of submissions and effective bandwidth of the publication channel?"

This question remains unanswered. The assertion that rejection criteria must exist does not imply that the topic exists in the book, nor the specific elements of such criteria.

I did not submit my book in Nature Journal but manuscript for Peer-Review. I knew that NJ has a lot of submissions but they should be smart enough to distinguish a discovery that could revolutionize the world like mine...

Nobody asserted that you submitted your book to Nature.

Try re-reading the question, for comprehension this time.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,06:06   

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 04 2015,05:08)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,00:00]
Edgar, if I understand you correctly, you say that there is a difference between natural things (naturen) and intelligently designed things (intellen) but you also say that "Existence follows intelligence and intelligence is always existence". This universe and everything in it exists, so does that mean that this universe and everything in it was/is intelligent or intelligently designed?

The universe is a very broad/big object. It includes everything that we know so far..thus, studying the "universe" and the object inside the universe are two different studies. Thus, we can classify and categorize any X of/inside the universe for origin and cause & effect separately.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,06:22   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,04:06)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,02:00]  
You don't understand that, in order to do actual science, you need a consistent set of rules that can be applied to explain stuff and draw conclusions, and those conclusions should be empirically testeable. I'm not even asking you for evidence here, just testing the consistency of your own "rules":

 
Quote
Existence follows intelligence and intelligence is always existence, thus, one is the compliment of other.


Is this complement thing in any of your books? How come you didn't mention it in your original post here? Maybe because it's an ad-hoc explanation that you just pulled out of your ass to solve the obvious problems with your rules presented to you?

But let's see how that works:

Doesn't existence also follows "naturen"? Don't natural processes also bring things into existence?

 
Quote
It means that we will never have existence from the beginning without intelligence, thus, the two must be both existing from infinity since intelligence is an infinite phenomenon


Well, if "naturen" is also complementary to existence, then you must admit, by your own rules, that "will never have existence from the beginning without nature"

 
Quote
since intelligence is an infinite phenomenon


So you are saying that, when you claimed that playing guitar made you intelligent, that means that you're infinite? That you've been playing guitar from eternity? This is clearly a falsifiable claim.

Of course we all know you're talking about god now, not like you were fooling anyone, but for your rules to be consistent, you don't get to determine what "intelligence" your definitions apply to, unless explicitly stated in your own rules. If you say that intelligence is infinite, then by showing that some intelligence is not infinite (you were born, we can collect evidence for that) then your claim is falsified and your "theory" is wrong.

But of course, if you make an exception for the "original intelligence", the one you're out to prove, then you're guilty of special pleading and your entire argument crumbles

 
Quote
Now, apply that to Big Bang


Why is the Big Bang about life and survival? on what basis do you claim that the Big Bang is not naturen? If your rules where consistent you would be applying them here too. You don't do that, you don't justify why the Big Bang is not "naturen". You're just pontificating and clearly trying (and failing) to prove there is a god.

You fail miserably at pseudo-science and what's worse, at philosophy of religion, because you're just rehashing ancient Aristotelian cause-effect arguments. You're stupid, incoherent and  unoriginal

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,02:00)
 
You don't understand that, in order to do actual science, you need a consistent set of rules that can be applied to explain stuff and draw conclusions, and those conclusions should be empirically testable. I'm not even asking you for evidence here, just testing the consistency of your own "rules":

I am always consistent. I am sorry if you find inconsistency with me but I think I am always consistent especially with rules.

Quote
Is this complement thing in any of your books? How come you didn't mention it in your original post here? Maybe because it's an ad-hoc explanation that you just pulled out of your ass to solve the obvious problems with your rules presented to you?
I've written many things in my science books and I promised that I will limit only myself to intelligence, but you forced me to answer the question of the origin of IA, thus, I answered you. Yes, there are many things that I did not even disclose here..but I sure to it that you can follow me in the topic of intelligence.

Quote
Well, if "naturen" is also complementary to existence, then you must admit, by your own rules, that "will never have existence from the beginning without nature"

What I said is on the topic of the origin of intelligence and origin of IA about naturen. But excluding the two, all things are the same.


Quote
So you are saying that, when you claimed that playing guitar made you intelligent, that means that you're infinite? That you've been playing guitar from eternity? This is clearly a falsifiable claim.

Of course we all know you're talking about god now, not like you were fooling anyone, but for your rules to be consistent, you don't get to determine what "intelligence" your definitions apply to, unless explicitly stated in your own rules. If you say that intelligence is infinite, then by showing that some intelligence is not infinite (you were born, we can collect evidence for that) then your claim is falsified and your "theory" is wrong.

But of course, if you make an exception for the "original intelligence", the one you're out to prove, then you're guilty of special pleading and your entire argument crumbles  
When I used the playing of guitar as example, what I meant was that to an IA, everything that an IA is doing by using intelligence is naturen for that IA. For us who will study that natural phenomenon, that IA is using intellen.

There are applications of finite and infinite intelligence since we knew that all natural things that we see so far are finite but intelligence as principle though it exists in existence is an infinite phenomenon.

I am not proving the IA but intelligence predicst its existence since intelligence is for existence and intelligence predicts that an IA has a dual or more nature..

I was forced to conclude that since intelligence pinpoints that...


Quote
Why is the Big Bang about life and survival? on what basis do you claim that the Big Bang is not naturen? If your rules where consistent you would be applying them here too. You don't do that, you don't justify why the Big Bang is not "naturen". You're just pontificating and clearly trying (and failing) to prove there is a god.

You fail miserably at pseudo-science and what's worse, at philosophy of religion, because you're just rehashing ancient Aristotelian cause-effect arguments. You're stupid, incoherent and  unoriginal

What I said was that without a prior existence before the Big Bang, there will be no Big Bang. Big Bang as survival, probably naturen but the particles that we knew of have dual nature, a rarity of nature if the existence of nature that we knew from Big Bang is naturen.

If naturen, nature will produce wave/wave particle or particle/particle particle but nature has two nature...thus, by using intelligence, it is so obvious that the existence of universe through Big Bang is intellen..

Therefore, IA exists.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,06:26   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 04 2015,05:41)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,03:06)
 
"Does your book take into account volume of submissions and effective bandwidth of the publication channel?"

This question remains unanswered. The assertion that rejection criteria must exist does not imply that the topic exists in the book, nor the specific elements of such criteria.

My science books did not use volume of submissions of many publication channel since almost all channels that I knew of were being tinted with wrong intelligence and ToE.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,06:54   

What color were they being tinted?

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,06:57   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,03:08)
[quote=QED,Oct. 04 2015,00:00]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,21:07)
 
Nonliving structures do not behave the same way living structures do. Living structures move, replicate, consume and expend energy, and respond to their environment. You may see the structures themselves as things that are assembled according to what your limited education has taught you, but the act of assembling, who assembles them, and how they behave - the difference between life and nonlife - is not similar at all.

You cannot allow ToE to be used in engineering? Who does that? Look, your education taught you to slap steel, brick, and mortar together to try to build things that hopefully won't collapse and kill people. But sometimes those things do. So, the act of (poor) engineering kills people. ToE is a scientific theory, an explanation of a material biological phenomenon using the most reliable evidence available. It doesn't kill. It doesn't do anything. It attempts to describe what's being done. Are you really this dense, or just making things up as you go?

Please answer the question honestly. Who is the Intelligent Agent? God? Aliens? You?

Remember that in the whole natural realm, no X has ever been found assembling by itself without any intelligence especially when life, survival, success and existence is in consideration.
...

Strictly false.  Easily shown to be false.
Snowflakes.

X, the snowflake, assembles itself without any intelligence involved at any stage in the process.
If you disagree, it is incumbent upon you to show that intelligence was involved, which intelligence, what that intelligence did, and how things would have gone had intelligence not been involved.

I rest my case.

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,07:02   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,07:06)
[quote=The whole truth,Oct. 04 2015,05:08]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,00:00)

Edgar, if I understand you correctly, you say that there is a difference between natural things (naturen) and intelligently designed things (intellen) but you also say that "Existence follows intelligence and intelligence is always existence". This universe and everything in it exists, so does that mean that this universe and everything in it was/is intelligent or intelligently designed?

The universe is a very broad/big object. It includes everything that we know so far..thus, studying the "universe" and the object inside the universe are two different studies. Thus, we can classify and categorize any X of/inside the universe for origin and cause & effect separately.

Very confused and ultimately wrong headed.

"The Universe" is not a thing amongst other things, yet you persist in speaking of it as if it were.
The universe is the sum total of everything that exists.
The universe is existence.
Study of the things in the universe is indeed study of the universe.  There's nothing else out there to study.

Which leads me to point out your second linguistic error that leads to much of your foolishness.
You persist in treating existence as if it were a property.  It is not.  It is not a thing, not an attribute, not a property.

Consequently, there is no 'inside/outside' distinction that can be made.  Anything we may discuss is part of the universe.  Everything exists.  The tricky part is its mode of existence -- many things exist as fictional entities, as linguistic constructs, as hallucinations, etc.  Your work falls somewhere between fiction and hallucination.
Get help.

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,07:07   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,21:57)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 03 2015,20:04]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:56)

Absurd.
Do you even know what 'symmetrical' and 'asymmetrical' mean?
Likewise with 'identical'.

Stop preening and posing and address the issues.

Of course,I knew those words on the context of my new discoveries..

Thus, I have science and you just cannot accept them..

I don't care...

So those words mean something different from their usual meanings when used in the context of your discovery.
Well, that's just wrong.
That's not how you do science, that's not how you communicate.

Symmetry and Asymmetry are general and relatively broad concepts with wide application.
Your use of the terms amounts to abuse, for you do not establish the axis nor the dimension for which symmetry/asymmetry is claimed.

Aside from all that, no, you have no science.  No specific identifiable phenomenon.  No evidence.  No logic.  No coherence.
Nothing but a hyper-excited convulsive rant that spins out ever more frantic appeals to "See how brilliant I am!  I must be, because you don't understand it, but you will!!  Then you'll see!!!"

Hardly worthy of attention.
But if you truly don't care, why are you so emotionally invested in spewing your nonsense here, there, and everywhere?  Or is "don't care" another one of those phrases that means something 'special' in the context of your "theory"?

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,07:08   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,06:57)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,03:08]
Quote (QED @ Oct. 04 2015,00:00)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,21:07)
 
Nonliving structures do not behave the same way living structures do. Living structures move, replicate, consume and expend energy, and respond to their environment. You may see the structures themselves as things that are assembled according to what your limited education has taught you, but the act of assembling, who assembles them, and how they behave - the difference between life and nonlife - is not similar at all.

You cannot allow ToE to be used in engineering? Who does that? Look, your education taught you to slap steel, brick, and mortar together to try to build things that hopefully won't collapse and kill people. But sometimes those things do. So, the act of (poor) engineering kills people. ToE is a scientific theory, an explanation of a material biological phenomenon using the most reliable evidence available. It doesn't kill. It doesn't do anything. It attempts to describe what's being done. Are you really this dense, or just making things up as you go?

Please answer the question honestly. Who is the Intelligent Agent? God? Aliens? You?

Remember that in the whole natural realm, no X has ever been found assembling by itself without any intelligence especially when life, survival, success and existence is in consideration.
...

Strictly false.  Easily shown to be false.
Snowflakes.

X, the snowflake, assembles itself without any intelligence involved at any stage in the process.
If you disagree, it is incumbent upon you to show that intelligence was involved, which intelligence, what that intelligence did, and how things would have gone had intelligence not been involved.

I rest my case.

Take note that I always answered you with intelligence in mind for origin and cause & effect.

Snowflakes, flood, typhoon, earthquakes and the likes are all naturen...they are just using their instincts (or naturen) to live and not intelligence, thus, they don't assemble themselves since they did not know how to assemble themselves. We can call them that they had just evolved from X to Y...

The water evolved to become flood, the snow evolved to become snowflakes, the combinations of water, rain, wind and cloud evolve into typhoon...now you know where to use the word "evolution"...

Assembling requires intelligence.

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,07:14   

[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,03:00]  
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,21:20)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:59)

What the fuck does any of that have to do with infinity?

Dude, I'm going to organize a Dîner de Cons, and I want you to come. I'm winning by a landslide

Existence follows intelligence and intelligence is always existence, thus, one is the compliment of other.

Incoherent.  Self-contradictory.  

 
Quote
It means that we will never have existence from the beginning without intelligence, thus, the two must be both existing from infinity since intelligence is an infinite phenomenon.

Blatant assertion, made without support.  Does not follow from anything you've presented, rather than asserted.
In fact, it appears that all that you have done is make assertions.
Have you specified an identifiable phenomenon or known and distinct class of phenomena?  No, you have not.
Have you supplied any evidence as opposed to special pleading or assertion or allegations of fact known already to be false?  No, you have not.
Have you linked a logical structure with the phenomenon in question and the evidence provided?  Given that you have no phenomenon and no evidence, well then, of course you haven't.

Quote
Thus, if there is IA of Cosmos, it is predicted that this IA is not created but exist from eternity since this IA is the source of both existence and infinity.

Now, apply that to Big Bang and you will know that before the Big Bang, an existence is always needed.

Is that hard to understand? Or hard to accept?

It is hard to understand in the sense you so clearly mean, but that's because it is nonsense.
It is hard to accept because it is wrong in that it is nonsense.
Literally.  That is, it is not meaningful, senseful.  It is word salad, drenched in your typical self-congratulatory smugness.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,07:17   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,07:07)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,21:57]
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 03 2015,20:04)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:56)

Absurd.
Do you even know what 'symmetrical' and 'asymmetrical' mean?
Likewise with 'identical'.

Stop preening and posing and address the issues.

Of course,I knew those words on the context of my new discoveries..

Thus, I have science and you just cannot accept them..

I don't care...

So those words mean something different from their usual meanings when used in the context of your discovery.
Well, that's just wrong.
That's not how you do science, that's not how you communicate.

Symmetry and Asymmetry are general and relatively broad concepts with wide application.
Your use of the terms amounts to abuse, for you do not establish the axis nor the dimension for which symmetry/asymmetry is claimed.

Aside from all that, no, you have no science.  No specific identifiable phenomenon.  No evidence.  No logic.  No coherence.
Nothing but a hyper-excited convulsive rant that spins out ever more frantic appeals to "See how brilliant I am!  I must be, because you don't understand it, but you will!!  Then you'll see!!!"

Hardly worthy of attention.
But if you truly don't care, why are you so emotionally invested in spewing your nonsense here, there, and everywhere?  Or is "don't care" another one of those phrases that means something 'special' in the context of your "theory"?

Remember that you are talking to a scientist and discoverer (it's me) in where all of my basis are in my new discoveries..

If you did not take note about that, you will surely get lost...

Of course I am a brilliant for if I am not, why should I wrote science books and fool myself?  Unless someone in this 7 billions of people could tell me which is the real intelligence that is too different from me, I am still genius and I am proud of that.

That is why SMASH my new discoveries and do it for me, write them in books, publish them and I will buy if you can so that I can delete all of my science books and videos in YouTube... I dare you to do it in the name of science....

Yes, I don't care about those people who oppose me with no science.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,07:23   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,07:14)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,03:00]  
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,21:20)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:59)

What the fuck does any of that have to do with infinity?

Dude, I'm going to organize a Dîner de Cons, and I want you to come. I'm winning by a landslide

Existence follows intelligence and intelligence is always existence, thus, one is the compliment of other.

Incoherent.  Self-contradictory.  

 
Quote
It means that we will never have existence from the beginning without intelligence, thus, the two must be both existing from infinity since intelligence is an infinite phenomenon.

Blatant assertion, made without support.  Does not follow from anything you've presented, rather than asserted.
In fact, it appears that all that you have done is make assertions.
Have you specified an identifiable phenomenon or known and distinct class of phenomena?  No, you have not.
Have you supplied any evidence as opposed to special pleading or assertion or allegations of fact known already to be false?  No, you have not.
Have you linked a logical structure with the phenomenon in question and the evidence provided?  Given that you have no phenomenon and no evidence, well then, of course you haven't.

 
Quote
Thus, if there is IA of Cosmos, it is predicted that this IA is not created but exist from eternity since this IA is the source of both existence and infinity.

Now, apply that to Big Bang and you will know that before the Big Bang, an existence is always needed.

Is that hard to understand? Or hard to accept?

It is hard to understand in the sense you so clearly mean, but that's because it is nonsense.
It is hard to accept because it is wrong in that it is nonsense.
Literally.  That is, it is not meaningful, senseful.  It is word salad, drenched in your typical self-congratulatory smugness.

What support that you are talking about? I had already told you that intelligence predicts it when I show you what is intellen and naturen.

But if you did not get it, then, I don't care. I think that you will never surely agree no matter what.

There are two things in life: understanding and acceptance even though there is an evidence. But I don't care if you don't accept...

I expected that that is why I don't care...

The phenomenon that you are talking about is the phenomenon of existence. All X must exist and so that X could exist, intelligence is needed..

Is that hard to get?

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,07:27   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,07:02)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,07:06]
Very confused and ultimately wrong headed.

"The Universe" is not a thing amongst other things, yet you persist in speaking of it as if it were.
The universe is the sum total of everything that exists.
The universe is existence.
Study of the things in the universe is indeed study of the universe.  There's nothing else out there to study.

Which leads me to point out your second linguistic error that leads to much of your foolishness.
You persist in treating existence as if it were a property.  It is not.  It is not a thing, not an attribute, not a property.

Consequently, there is no 'inside/outside' distinction that can be made.  Anything we may discuss is part of the universe.  Everything exists.  The tricky part is its mode of existence -- many things exist as fictional entities, as linguistic constructs, as hallucinations, etc.  Your work falls somewhere between fiction and hallucination.
Get help.

We agreed that "The universe is the sum total of everything that exists. The universe is existence." But let X = universe, then so that X could exist, you need intelligence since all existence uses intelligence.

Thus, before the universe exists, intelligence is needed.

Is that hard to understand?

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,07:36   

[QUOTEOf course I am a brilliant for if I am not, why should I wrote science books and fool myself?[/QUOTE]

So writing a book automatically makes you a brilliant scientist? Fucktard logic strikes again

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,07:50   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,04:06)
[quote=The whole truth,Oct. 04 2015,05:08]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,00:00)

Edgar, if I understand you correctly, you say that there is a difference between natural things (naturen) and intelligently designed things (intellen) but you also say that "Existence follows intelligence and intelligence is always existence". This universe and everything in it exists, so does that mean that this universe and everything in it was/is intelligent or intelligently designed?

The universe is a very broad/big object. It includes everything that we know so far..thus, studying the "universe" and the object inside the universe are two different studies. Thus, we can classify and categorize any X of/inside the universe for origin and cause & effect separately.

Edgar, you're dodging my question, so I'll try again to get a straight answer from you. I'll phrase my questions accordingly.

This universe and everything in it exists. If existence is due to intelligence:

1. Was and is this universe intelligently designed?

2. Was and is everything in this universe intelligently designed?

3. Is this universe intelligent?

4. Is everything in this universe intelligent?

5. If some things about or in this universe were or are not intelligently designed, list five of those things.

6. If some things about or in this universe were or are not intelligent, list five of those things.

7. Were and are all organisms intelligently designed?

8. Were and are all organisms intelligent?

9. Are extinctions caused by natural processes/events, or by intelligent design, or by intelligence?

10. What is the difference, if any, between intelligence and intelligent design?  

11. Rocks exist. Are they intelligent? Are they intelligently designed?

12. Is death intelligent?

13. Is death intelligently designed?

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

   
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,07:52   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,07:36)
[QUOTEOf course I am a brilliant for if I am not, why should I wrote science books and fool myself?[/QUOTE]

So writing a book automatically makes you a brilliant scientist? Fucktard logic strikes again

I said that I discovered in science that made me brilliant and smart or genius...

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,07:56   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,07:52)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,07:36)
[QUOTEOf course I am a brilliant for if I am not, why should I wrote science books and fool myself?


So writing a book automatically makes you a brilliant scientist? Fucktard logic strikes again[/quote]
I said that I discovered in science that made me brilliant and smart or genius...

No,  you are fucking retarded, which is "naturen" for creationists and there's plenty evidence to support that

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,07:58   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,05:23)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 04 2015,07:14]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,03:00)
   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,21:20)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:59)

What the fuck does any of that have to do with infinity?

Dude, I'm going to organize a Dîner de Cons, and I want you to come. I'm winning by a landslide

Existence follows intelligence and intelligence is always existence, thus, one is the compliment of other.

Incoherent.  Self-contradictory.  

   
Quote
It means that we will never have existence from the beginning without intelligence, thus, the two must be both existing from infinity since intelligence is an infinite phenomenon.

Blatant assertion, made without support.  Does not follow from anything you've presented, rather than asserted.
In fact, it appears that all that you have done is make assertions.
Have you specified an identifiable phenomenon or known and distinct class of phenomena?  No, you have not.
Have you supplied any evidence as opposed to special pleading or assertion or allegations of fact known already to be false?  No, you have not.
Have you linked a logical structure with the phenomenon in question and the evidence provided?  Given that you have no phenomenon and no evidence, well then, of course you haven't.

 
Quote
Thus, if there is IA of Cosmos, it is predicted that this IA is not created but exist from eternity since this IA is the source of both existence and infinity.

Now, apply that to Big Bang and you will know that before the Big Bang, an existence is always needed.

Is that hard to understand? Or hard to accept?

It is hard to understand in the sense you so clearly mean, but that's because it is nonsense.
It is hard to accept because it is wrong in that it is nonsense.
Literally.  That is, it is not meaningful, senseful.  It is word salad, drenched in your typical self-congratulatory smugness.

What support that you are talking about? I had already told you that intelligence predicts it when I show you what is intellen and naturen.

But if you did not get it, then, I don't care. I think that you will never surely agree no matter what.

There are two things in life: understanding and acceptance even though there is an evidence. But I don't care if you don't accept...

I expected that that is why I don't care...

The phenomenon that you are talking about is the phenomenon of existence. All X must exist and so that X could exist, intelligence is needed..

Is that hard to get?

What is "X"? What is included in "X"? Is there anything that is not included in "X"?

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

   
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,08:03   

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 04 2015,07:50)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,04:06]
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 04 2015,05:08)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,00:00)

Edgar, if I understand you correctly, you say that there is a difference between natural things (naturen) and intelligently designed things (intellen) but you also say that "Existence follows intelligence and intelligence is always existence". This universe and everything in it exists, so does that mean that this universe and everything in it was/is intelligent or intelligently designed?

The universe is a very broad/big object. It includes everything that we know so far..thus, studying the "universe" and the object inside the universe are two different studies. Thus, we can classify and categorize any X of/inside the universe for origin and cause & effect separately.

Edgar, you're dodging my question, so I'll try again to get a straight answer from you. I'll phrase my questions accordingly.

This universe and everything in it exists. If existence is due to intelligence:

1. Was and is this universe intelligently designed?

2. Was and is everything in this universe intelligently designed?

3. Is this universe intelligent?

4. Is everything in this universe intelligent?

5. If some things about or in this universe were or are not intelligently designed, list five of those things.

6. If some things about or in this universe were or are not intelligent, list five of those things.

7. Were and are all organisms intelligently designed?

8. Were and are all organisms intelligent?

9. Are extinctions caused by natural processes/events, or by intelligent design, or by intelligence?

10. What is the difference, if any, between intelligence and intelligent design?  

11. Rocks exist. Are they intelligent? Are they intelligently designed?

12. Is death intelligent?

13. Is death intelligently designed?

1. Was and is this universe intelligently designed?
ME: Yes.

2. Was and is everything in this universe intelligently designed?
ME: No. Some parts

3. Is this universe intelligent?
ME: No.

4. Is everything in this universe intelligent?
ME: No, some parts only.

5. If some things about or in this universe were or are not intelligently designed, list five of those things.
ME: Flood, earthquake, typhoon, sea surge, tsunami, lightning..etcs

6. If some things about or in this universe were or are not intelligent, list five of those things.
ME: See 5, animals except humans...


7. Were and are all organisms intelligently designed?
ME: Yes. Obvious.

8. Were and are all organisms intelligent?
Me: No.

9. Are extinctions caused by natural processes/events, or by intelligent design, or by intelligence?
ME: I don't know.

10. What is the difference, if any, between intelligence and intelligent design?  
ME: Intelligence is a principle..Intelligent Design is a study for intelligence and its application.

11. Rocks exist. Are they intelligent? Are they intelligently designed?
ME: It depends on the rocks. But basically, naturen.

12. Is death intelligent?
ME: No, since it violates existence and life and survival.

13. Is death intelligently designed?
ME: See 12

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,08:05   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,08:17)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 04 2015,07:07]...
Remember that you are talking to a scientist and discoverer (it's me) in where all of my basis are in my new discoveries..

If you did not take note about that, you will surely get lost...

Of course I am a brilliant for if I am not, why should I wrote science books and fool myself?  Unless someone in this 7 billions of people could tell me which is the real intelligence that is too different from me, I am still genius and I am proud of that.

That is why SMASH my new discoveries and do it for me, write them in books, publish them and I will buy if you can so that I can delete all of my science books and videos in YouTube... I dare you to do it in the name of science....

Yes, I don't care about those people who oppose me with no science.

There is no evidence whatsoever that you are a scientist.
You are not doing science, you are playing word games and deriving pseudo-logical fictions to make yourself feel good.

You have made no discoveries, or at least have shared none.
Your various word-plays do not lead to new results, let alone results that would count as any sort of discovery.
You have no evidence.

You have no specified phenomenon or class of phenomena to investigate.
Your definition of "intelligence" as given on the first page of this thread has already been shredded.
Now you're playing word games to try to distract from that while maintaining the pretense of having something significant.
You don't.

Nor are you brilliant.  That is not a suitable attribute to assign to oneself, for one is most easily fooled about one's own virtues, vices, and flaws.
It is best attributed to one by others.
Who thinks you're brilliant?  Why should anyone care?
Brilliance is achieved by results.  You have no genuine or useful results, despite your prideful assertions to the contrary.
As to why you would claim to be brilliant even though you are not -- who cares?  There are countless possible reasons.  You are not a genius, on the evidence.  You are not brilliant, on the evidence.
Your self-evaluation is up to you, and no one else cares.

Your alleged "discoveries" have already been smashed.
It doesn't take books.  It doesn't take publication.
It just takes minimal attention to your claims and their meaning as expressed.
Your work is absurdist nonsense.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,08:07   

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 04 2015,07:58)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,05:23]
What is "X"? What is included in "X"? Is there anything that is not included in "X"?

You FORGOT to read this, right?

I don't have longer time today but I have to share this.

YOU DON'T YET have no idea of what I've discovered..but it is god that you try to comprehend...

Later on, you will do it..

We will discuss later but your problem is how to apply the real intelligence and you are very confused...

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

From one of my science books, "The New Intelligent Design <id>, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down"..


SECTION 17.
HOW TO “INTELLIGENCE”



P1/P10Now that we had already discussed Mathematics of intelligence for Intelligent Design <id>, it is now time for us to know how we can use “intelligence” in reality. I put this topic here since I believed that we will never fully understand intelligence if we neglect Mathematics. In addition, we will never fully understand completely the natural realm if we neglect the topic of “intelligence”. So, let us roll. Let us “do intelligence”.

P2First, let us study the obvious objects (X). “Why we consider PCs or computers are intelligently designed objects (intellen)?” In our present time, we know that computers are being produced or designed by people who are using the knowledge of computing and intelligence. Thus, we agree that computers are intelligently designed objects. PCs are all intelligently designed objects, an intellen. It is so obvious and it is so straightforward. By using the principles of Intelligent Design <id> on “HOW TO ‘INTELLIGENCE’”, the features, accompanied in the finished products of PCs that we normally see, are all “supports or reinforcements” to the term (that we normally use as) “PCs”. If we use mathematics, Intelligent Design <id> predicts that if we could find a minimum of three features (for perfect intelligence) with respect to the term “PC”, then, that PC is considered an intellen. If the features exceed three (3), then the PC is not only intellen but also an important intellen. Thus, X is PCs, and the X’s are the features of PCs – an asymmetrical phenomenon. Take note very carefully, that we could easily categorize and recognize PCs as intellen, since we are directly dealing with PCs for almost every day. We knew how and who made those PCs, thus, our categorization is always correct and scientific;

P3Second, let us study the obscure objects (X). I called them “obscure” since those objects are very hard to be detected and yet we deal with them directly. In addition, humans did not made/created/designed them since they are already existing before humans exist. The two examples are (in biology) life and the living organisms, and in physics or cosmology, the universe. Intelligent Design <id> had been claiming that “life” and “living organisms” are intelligently designed since “life” and its “support mechanisms” are detected. We could also detect and see that all living organisms are intelligently designed since they also have the same pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. The pattern is: X = living organisms, X’ = components or structures of a living organisms. The universe is considered an intellen since Intelligent Design <id> had detected that matters have anti-matters, and particles have a dual nature – an unseeming properties if the universe is a naturen. As I said earlier, that if we include Mathematics, Intelligent Design <id> predicts that if the universe is intellen, we can find 2 or more X’ for the existence of physical universe. One X’ will be the existence of matter and anti-mater, the other X’ is the duality of particle, and the other X’ will be the existence of direction. If we study the universe further, we can add more X’. Thus, the universe is considered an intellen. It would the same to the living organisms. The presence of eyes, of ears, of feet, of sensory systems, of pain, etc are all X’ to the existence of living organisms. X’ in living organisms exceeds more than three (since three is considered a perfect intelligent, and more than three is considered important), thus, living organisms are not only intellen but also an important intellen;

P4Third, let us study the operose objects (X). I called them “operose” objects since it would take a keen and thorough scientific study of those objects in knowing if those objects are intellen or naturen. One example is, a "mountain", any mountain. If someone will ask, “Is this mountain intellen or naturen?” The question may seem absurd but since Intelligent Design <id> had claimed that <id> could categorize all X in the universe, then, <id> must do it. To solve this unseemingly weird question, (and if you would like to try this to any X that you want to know), the clues are in the definition of intelligence and the principles of intelligence. Here is again the definition of intelligence:

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.

P5Here is again the list of the principles of intelligence that Intelligent Design <id> had discovered and that had been using in this book and in reality.
Principle 1. The Principle of Asymmetry
Principle 2. The Principle of Reinforcement or Support
Principle 3. The Principle of Importance
Principle 4. The Principle of Simultaneity of or in Time
Principle 5. The Principle of Applied Knowledge
Principle 6. The Principle of Success or Independence
Principle 7. The Principle of Existence, Survival, Success, and Life
Principle 8. The Principle of Determinism

P6Intelligence, at least, requires an asymmetrical phenomenon and existence (two principles of intelligence), as criteria or requirements, in knowing X of its origin. Since intelligence deals with asymmetrical phenomenon, we need to know and study which X0 that could threat (asymmetrical phenomenon) the mountain of its existence. I mean, remember this, intelligent agent always apply the principles of intelligence (as enumerated above) in any X for existence, survival, success, or life. Thus, to know if the mountain is intellen, we have to find which X0 that could threat the mountain for non-existence or non-survival (a reversed process). (For reference, please use these variables: X0 here means threat to X. X’ is support to X. X is anything that we would like to study in the whole natural realm) By knowing the X0 that could threat the existence of X (like mountain); we could also find the X’ simultaneously since X’ is a support system to any X for existence. If we could not find X0, or if X0 is vague even though we made an experiment and study, then, the mountain is most certain a naturen.

P7Now, let us take Mt Rushmore as one example.


Figure 13. Mount Rushmore. [59]


P8In the above picture, the “mountain”, as Mt Rushmore (see Figure 13), contained four faces of the former US presidents. These features are X’ to the pattern X + X’. X = faces in the mountain, X’ = are the known faces in history in the mountain. Even though an ordinary person does not recognize the four faces specifically, that person will surely recognize that the carved faces in the rocks are faces of humans. How? By just looking at all directions with respect to the faces, one can surely tell or calculate that the occurrences of possibilities that those are human faces exceed more than three (3). Intelligent Design <id> predicted that if we could find three possibilities that the carved faces in the mountain are real human faces by just looking at the four faces, <id> predicts and categorizes it as intellen. Since we could see directly in all directions that the four faces resembles the faces of human beings, the occurrences of possibilities that those are real human faces will surely exceed three. Then, they are all considered an important intellen, and the mountain (Mt Rushmore) is considered an intellen. However, the existence of Mt Rushmore before the faces were carved is a naturen.

P9Let us use again the “living organism” as one example. I will be using this example because by using a very obvious example, we can easily understand how to use “intelligence” in real applications in real world. We knew that all living organisms have support mechanisms, whether those supports mechanisms are feet, eyes, skin, internal organs, or mind. For example, if we threat those living organisms for non-existence, it is expected that a living organism will somehow defend its existence or life by just negating away to the threat or fight back or any behavior that could save its existence. By including mathematics, if we threat a living organism for non-existence, <id> predicts that we can expect or see that a living organism will surely use its support mechanism (such as defense mechanisms, X’) for existence to counter-measure the threat. By numerically and empirically counting the counter-measures (defense mechanisms, for example), we can know if a living organism is an intellen if the calculated X’ exceeds to 1.5. Thus, in human, if we use human as one example, a human has ears, nose, eyes, hands, feet, mouth. In this example, I enumerated six-support mechanisms of human and since they exceed three, then human is considered an important intellen. I think that you already get the idea that I would like to convey.

P10/P10By experiment in dealing with nature and intelligence, I think that we can master this technique and use it for the advancements of human society toward a better living. After you understand the real intelligence and the contents of this book, you can now see how these discoveries from Intelligent Design <id> affect many fields in science such as in Biology, Physics, Philosophy, Psychology and so forth. You can now understand all of my remaining published science books that discussed these following fields in science.

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,08:18   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,08:08)
       
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,06:57)
       
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,03:08)
       
Quote (QED @ Oct. 04 2015,00:00)
         
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,21:07)
 
Nonliving structures do not behave the same way living structures do. Living structures move, replicate, consume and expend energy, and respond to their environment. You may see the structures themselves as things that are assembled according to what your limited education has taught you, but the act of assembling, who assembles them, and how they behave - the difference between life and nonlife - is not similar at all.

You cannot allow ToE to be used in engineering? Who does that? Look, your education taught you to slap steel, brick, and mortar together to try to build things that hopefully won't collapse and kill people. But sometimes those things do. So, the act of (poor) engineering kills people. ToE is a scientific theory, an explanation of a material biological phenomenon using the most reliable evidence available. It doesn't kill. It doesn't do anything. It attempts to describe what's being done. Are you really this dense, or just making things up as you go?

Please answer the question honestly. Who is the Intelligent Agent? God? Aliens? You?

Remember that in the whole natural realm, no X has ever been found assembling by itself without any intelligence especially when life, survival, success and existence is in consideration.
...

Strictly false.  Easily shown to be false.
Snowflakes.

X, the snowflake, assembles itself without any intelligence involved at any stage in the process.
If you disagree, it is incumbent upon you to show that intelligence was involved, which intelligence, what that intelligence did, and how things would have gone had intelligence not been involved.

I rest my case.

     
Quote
Take note that I always answered you with intelligence in mind for origin and cause & effect.

And you were wrong.  Your 'definition' does not suffice to do the job you ask of it, being groundless incoherence and not actually a definition at all.
You've been answered in your challenge.  You lose.
Deal with it.
       
Quote
Snowflakes, flood, typhoon, earthquakes and the likes are all naturen...they are just using their instincts (or naturen) to live and not intelligence, thus, they don't assemble themselves since they did not know how to assemble themselves. We can call them that they had just evolved from X to Y...

Utter nonsense.
Snowflakes do assemble themselves.  You are unable to show otherwise.
It is irrelevant that your "theory" requires something else.
The world is what it is.  Absent evidence to the contrary, all of existence behaves according to the 'nature' of the entities involved.
There are no grounds for distinguishing intelligence from the self-assembly of snowflakes.  The particular forms snowflakes take are emergent properties of the interactions of physical and chemical laws.
The particular forms intelligence takes are emergent properties of the interactions of physical, chemical, biological and social laws.
It is all natural.  

 
Quote
The water evolved to become flood, the snow evolved to become snowflakes, the combinations of water, rain, wind and cloud evolve into typhoon...now you know where to use the word "evolution"...

Entirely wrong.  You are misusing the standard meaning of the term, driven by nothing more than the smug arrogance of asserting that your "theory" must be correct, so to hell with how the world really works and what the evidence really shows.
Evolution has quite specific meanings and they do not cover the cases you attempt to use them for.

     
Quote
Assembling requires intelligence.

Bull crap.
You keep asserting this, but it is a groundless assertion.
There is absolutely no reason  to believe it is true.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without effort.
You've been given far more than is required to show that your efforts are for nothing, you have accomplished nothing but the propagation of error.

Try to do better.

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,08:27   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,08:23)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,07:14)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,03:00)
   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,21:20)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:59)

What the fuck does any of that have to do with infinity?

Dude, I'm going to organize a Dîner de Cons, and I want you to come. I'm winning by a landslide

Existence follows intelligence and intelligence is always existence, thus, one is the compliment of other.

Incoherent.  Self-contradictory.  

   
Quote
It means that we will never have existence from the beginning without intelligence, thus, the two must be both existing from infinity since intelligence is an infinite phenomenon.

Blatant assertion, made without support.  Does not follow from anything you've presented, rather than asserted.
In fact, it appears that all that you have done is make assertions.
Have you specified an identifiable phenomenon or known and distinct class of phenomena?  No, you have not.
Have you supplied any evidence as opposed to special pleading or assertion or allegations of fact known already to be false?  No, you have not.
Have you linked a logical structure with the phenomenon in question and the evidence provided?  Given that you have no phenomenon and no evidence, well then, of course you haven't.

 
Quote
Thus, if there is IA of Cosmos, it is predicted that this IA is not created but exist from eternity since this IA is the source of both existence and infinity.

Now, apply that to Big Bang and you will know that before the Big Bang, an existence is always needed.

Is that hard to understand? Or hard to accept?

It is hard to understand in the sense you so clearly mean, but that's because it is nonsense.
It is hard to accept because it is wrong in that it is nonsense.
Literally.  That is, it is not meaningful, senseful.  It is word salad, drenched in your typical self-congratulatory smugness.

What support that you are talking about? I had already told you that intelligence predicts it when I show you what is intellen and naturen.

But it doesn't matter what you tell people.  It matters what you can actually demonstrate and support with evidence.
You've done neither of those.  Your definition of "intelligence" is useless.
Quote
But if you did not get it, then, I don't care. I think that you will never surely agree no matter what.

So you already accuse others of bad faith.
Yet you have ignored the very concrete and specific challenges I and others have raised against your word salad.
The least that can be said is that if you truly didn't care what others thought, you would not be trying so desperately to convince them of the truth of your wibble.
Yet here you are...
Quote
There are two things in life: understanding and acceptance even though there is an evidence. But I don't care if you don't accept...

You have no evidence.  None.
[quote]...
The phenomenon that you are talking about is the phenomenon of existence. All X must exist and so that X could exist, intelligence is needed..

Is that hard to get?

It is perfectly comprehensible.  It is also wrong.
Wrong in the large, wrong in the small, wrong in the overarching principle, wrong in the details.

What makes it wrong?
You are confused, at best, on the nature of existence.
You are clueless about the nature of phenomena.
You are wrong about what counts as evidence.
You are wrong about the explanatory force of assertions.

All you have done is spin word-games and assertions.
There is no evidence.
There is not even a solid chain of logic that attempts to show, from well-defined, well-grounded principles, that existence, as such, requires intelligence.
Nor is there any evidence that you have considered what then nature of this putative requirement might be.
Existence requires stars, for they are the inevitable outcome of the nature of the universe.
It could be that intelligence is also required, in that it is the outcome of fully natural laws and processes.  It may be that the existence of intelligence is required.
But not required for there to be existence.

You have nothing but word games and assertions.
They're not even very good ones.  Any rambling drunk on a street corner can emit equivalent grandiose fantasy "theories".  They are worth no less than your work.
Your efforts are wasted because, quite simply you are wrong.  About everything that matters.
And you've been shown quite a few areas where this is demonstrably so.  You ignore those, which is hardly a surprise.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,08:52   

[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,06:03]
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 04 2015,07:50)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,04:06)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 04 2015,05:08)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,00:00)

Edgar, if I understand you correctly, you say that there is a difference between natural things (naturen) and intelligently designed things (intellen) but you also say that "Existence follows intelligence and intelligence is always existence". This universe and everything in it exists, so does that mean that this universe and everything in it was/is intelligent or intelligently designed?

The universe is a very broad/big object. It includes everything that we know so far..thus, studying the "universe" and the object inside the universe are two different studies. Thus, we can classify and categorize any X of/inside the universe for origin and cause & effect separately.

Edgar, you're dodging my question, so I'll try again to get a straight answer from you. I'll phrase my questions accordingly.

This universe and everything in it exists. If existence is due to intelligence:

1. Was and is this universe intelligently designed?

2. Was and is everything in this universe intelligently designed?

3. Is this universe intelligent?

4. Is everything in this universe intelligent?

5. If some things about or in this universe were or are not intelligently designed, list five of those things.

6. If some things about or in this universe were or are not intelligent, list five of those things.

7. Were and are all organisms intelligently designed?

8. Were and are all organisms intelligent?

9. Are extinctions caused by natural processes/events, or by intelligent design, or by intelligence?

10. What is the difference, if any, between intelligence and intelligent design?  

11. Rocks exist. Are they intelligent? Are they intelligently designed?

12. Is death intelligent?

13. Is death intelligently designed?

1. Was and is this universe intelligently designed?
ME: Yes.

2. Was and is everything in this universe intelligently designed?
ME: No. Some parts

3. Is this universe intelligent?
ME: No.

4. Is everything in this universe intelligent?
ME: No, some parts only.

5. If some things about or in this universe were or are not intelligently designed, list five of those things.
ME: Flood, earthquake, typhoon, sea surge, tsunami, lightning..etcs

6. If some things about or in this universe were or are not intelligent, list five of those things.
ME: See 5, animals except humans...


7. Were and are all organisms intelligently designed?
ME: Yes. Obvious.

8. Were and are all organisms intelligent?
Me: No.

9. Are extinctions caused by natural processes/events, or by intelligent design, or by intelligence?
ME: I don't know.

10. What is the difference, if any, between intelligence and intelligent design?  
ME: Intelligence is a principle..Intelligent Design is a study for intelligence and its application.

11. Rocks exist. Are they intelligent? Are they intelligently designed?
ME: It depends on the rocks. But basically, naturen.

12. Is death intelligent?
ME: No, since it violates existence and life and survival.

13. Is death intelligently designed?
ME: See 12

 
Quote
We agreed that "The universe is the sum total of everything that exists. The universe is existence." But let X = universe, then so that X could exist, you need intelligence since all existence uses intelligence.


So, Edgar, you say you agree that the universe is the sum total of everything that exists, but you also say that the universe is separate from what is in it, and you say that the universe (which includes everything in it) exists and that the universe's existence is due to intelligence and that the universe (which includes everything in it) was and is intelligently designed, but you also say that only some parts of the universe were and are intelligent and that only some parts of it were and are intelligently designed, and you say that all organisms were and are intelligently designed but that only humans are intelligent, yet you say that "all existence uses intelligence".

Do you believe that your inconsistent, contradictory claims won't be noticed?

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

   
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,09:00   

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 04 2015,09:52)
...
Do you believe that your inconsistent, contradictory claims won't be noticed?

Worse.
He doesn't believe that his claims are inconsistent or contradictory.  He appears to be incapable of seeing it.

He refuses to face the brute fact that his word salad has no value.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,09:28   

Edgar said:

Quote
Let us use again the “living organism” as one example. I will be using this example because by using a very obvious example, we can easily understand how to use “intelligence” in real applications in real world. We knew that all living organisms have support mechanisms, whether those supports mechanisms are feet, eyes, skin, internal organs, or mind. For example, if we threat those living organisms for non-existence, it is expected that a living organism will somehow defend its existence or life by just negating away to the threat or fight back or any behavior that could save its existence. By including mathematics, if we threat a living organism for non-existence, <id> predicts that we can expect or see that a living organism will surely use its support mechanism (such as defense mechanisms, X’) for existence to counter-measure the threat. By numerically and empirically counting the counter-measures (defense mechanisms, for example), we can know if a living organism is an intellen if the calculated X’ exceeds to 1.5. Thus, in human, if we use human as one example, a human has ears, nose, eyes, hands, feet, mouth. In this example, I enumerated six-support mechanisms of human and since they exceed three, then human is considered an important intellen. I think that you already get the idea that I would like to convey.


Humans are not the only organism that has "feet, eyes, skin, internal organs, or mind" and "ears, nose, eyes, hands, feet, mouth", and humans are not the only organism that will "defend its existence or life", yet you say that only humans are intelligent even though you attribute "support mechanisms" and "defense mechanisms" and "existence" to using intelligence.  

You're also now saying that defense mechanisms are X' and you're referring to some calculated X' and you previously said that the universe is X. You obviously like the letter X but the way you use it makes no sense.

Edited by The whole truth on Oct. 04 2015,07:29

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