RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (42) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   
  Topic: MrIntelligentDesign, Edgar Postrado's new Intelligent Design< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
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: 2729
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: 2729
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: 3337
Joined: June 2006

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

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

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
KevinB



Posts: 489
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: 4003
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: 1836
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: 1836
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: 1836
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: 3217
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: 4946
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: 532
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: 4946
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

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

Pages: (42) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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