RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (42) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: MrIntelligentDesign, Edgar Postrado's new Intelligent Design< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
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: 2839
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: 3898
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: 4815
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.

  
  1252 replies since Sep. 30 2015,06:36 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (42) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]