N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,13:57) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 04 2015,09:45) | Hello, Edgar. The process of science can be summed up as anything and everything that makes science scientist-proof, and as Feynman noted, the easiest person to fool is yourself. You’ve short-circuited all of those procedures (e.g., peer review, rigorous and logically valid hypothesis-testing) and so you have succeeded in fooling yourself, as NoName noted, with word games and fake logic.
For the sake of argument I can agree with your neologisms if they are defined as intellen being everything produced by intelligence and naturen being everything else. (Is that fair?)
However, we have problems in defining intelligence and recognizing its products, and beyond that your concepts of symmetry, solutions, and the “math” of intellen go off the rails and everything gets worse from there.
Anything with positive feedback puts at risk your formulation of “>1" (or >1.5). Anything that is self-assembled (snowflakes) is similar. You get around most of these problems by arguing that if these occur without further input of intelligence, then these instances of increasing order or increasing complexity are inherent or intrinsic to the nature of the components before they are combined and are "naturen" rather than "intellen". That's fine as far as it goes: - snowflakes are not intelligently designed, and their complex shapes result from thermodynamics and bond strengths and angles. However, by what evidence do you conclude that living organisms have to be intelligently designed, and that animals are not intelligent? Quite a lot of re-organisation and increasing complexity can occur through standard chemistry in the test tube (and although we do not understand the origin of life we do not seem to have exhausted inorganic and unintelligent possibilities for steps en route to the formation of life). Animals can show dramatic instances of tool use and problem-solving that are clearly small natural steps to human levels of intelligence. Identifying animals as unintelligent but the product of intelligence is an unjustified assertion that begs your conclusions at both ends of the problem, and basically becomes a statement of religious faith rather than a scientific conclusion. The basic challenge of life is reproduction, with the minimal long-term solution being at replacement levels (so the minimal long-term solution is two great-great-great-etc.-grandkids per pair of great-great-great-etc.-grandparents, meaning that the minimum short-term solution is at least one offspring per pair of sexually reproducing parents). The numbers need to be increased to allow for accidental losses, and can be reduced a bit to allow for survival of your genes through survival of nephews and neices rather than sons and daughters, but hopefully you get the idea.) However, what happens in nature in most species other than ours is that most organisms fail to reproduce at replacement levels but a few do much better than replacement. Surely applying your math to that shows the offspring produced at or below replacement levels to be naturen, while extra offspring are intellen and the animals that reproduced especially successfully can attribute their success to intelligence. This would especially be the case in mammals such as elephants, dolphins, whales, pandas, where survival of the young can be tied to successful application of knowledge to decisions by the mother. (Not that pandas are particularly smart, but most of the mothers are clueless about child-rearing and therefore perform tragically poorly.)
Symmetry and asymmetry are not the right terms for production of solutions in excess of minimal need or not, and even if they were the right terms, your example of extra paper clips is not good for much as it is too simplistic. Sometimes, the optimum solution is exactly what is needed and not more. (“Bring me the largest amount of concentrated uranium-235 that constitutes a sub-critical mass”, “Please go to the jewelry store and buy my wife the finest diamond ring that I can afford”, “I’d like one Siamese fighting fish for my fish bowl, please”, eating more vitamin A than you need, “Jesus, Bob, I asked for one paperclip, not four trillion of them”.) Your example of drinking what you need versus a drink fortified with micronutrients is a classic example of this: all micronutrient elements are needed up to certain levels but eventually become toxic at higher levels (there’s usually a broad margin of safety rather than an abrupt transition to toxicity and some toxicity levels are extremely high, but even so, too much is bad: it is comparatively easy to overdose with potassium and flouride, for example). Therefore your critical ratios are unjustified. |
I will elaborate here why you and others were wrong.
1. I did not fool myself. I am perfectly clear, but have patience since our topic is a very hard topic that for 2000 years our best scientists and thinkers could never solve the problem of intelligence.
2. | Quote | | However, by what evidence do you conclude that living organisms have to be intelligently designed, and that animals are not intelligent? Quite a lot of re-organisation and increasing complexity can occur through standard chemistry in the test tube (and although we do not understand the origin of life we do not seem to have exhausted inorganic and unintelligent possibilities for steps en route to the formation of life). |
I've already told you about asymmetrical and symmetrical phenomenon. Do you understand the two and its application?
3. | Quote | | Animals can show dramatic instances of tool use and problem-solving that are clearly small natural steps to human levels of intelligence. Identifying animals as unintelligent but the product of intelligence is an unjustified assertion that begs your conclusions at both ends of the problem, and basically becomes a statement of religious faith rather than a scientific conclusion. |
These were you got a mistake. All animals except humans use instincts. Humans also from time to time use instincts but humans have intelligence since humans know how X to exist for the survival, life and existence of humans.
Animals, even though they may use tools, they use instinct only. ToE has no differentiation between instinct to intelligence, that is why you are really confused.
Solving a problem with a solution is symmetrical, thus, it is naturen. All of you got a mistake in thinking that this is intellen. No, not even intelligence.
Intelligence is when one problem is solved with two or more solutions - an asymmetrical phenomenon. That is intellen for sure.
As you can see, the above were the errors of all scientists and thinkers around world. If you could read my Peer-Review Book and its documentation, you will know why that error had happened.
4. And the rest of your posts are nonsense. |
Hello again, Edgar,
| Quote | Yes, ToE is a religion since I defined religion as "any conclusion that has no experiment". ToE has no experiment to show.
ToE has dismissed intelligence, which means intelligence is zero. OK, I got it. |
The Theory of Evolution is backed up by a VERY large number of experiments: not ones where we experimentally evolve the first life or re-evolve humans, but ones where genes to grow teeth are shown to be present in chickens; where mutations are demonstrated that are capable of changing an arthropod from one order to another or one class to another; where whole new organs evolve; where whole new functions evolve; where the strengths and effects of natural selection are measured, and so on. You lose on that one.
Evolutionary biologists and the Theory of Evolution do not "ignore intelligence". They have disproved Intelligent Design, which is another matter altogether.
From 1911, S.J.Holmes, The Evolution of Animal Intelligence
http://www.subjectpool.com/ed_teac....nce.pdf
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014.......ligence
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........2346520
http://link.springer.com/chapter....#page-1
I know, you don't accept intelligence in animals, but let's look at that for a moment.
You: | Quote | | These were you got a mistake. All animals except humans use instincts. Humans also from time to time use instincts but humans have intelligence since humans know how X to exist for the survival, life and existence of humans. Animals, even though they may use tools, they use instinct only. ToE has no differentiation between instinct to intelligence, that is why you are really confused. |
Not to put to fine a point on that, but your opinion is unsupported and wrong, and drives your conclusion that there is no bridge between animal intelligence and human intelligence, indeed your circular argument that animal intelligence does not exist. The papers I mentioned above list various aspects and attributes of intelligence and show that rudimentary versions (relative to human intelligence) are indeed present in animals. Because you reject animal intelligence BY FIAT rather than with evidence or logic, you force yourself to accept the conclusion that you wanted prior to beginning your investigation. That's not science, Edgar.
ToE does indeed distinguish between instinct (innate behavior) and learned behavior - there is a huge volume of work on this topic that you are ignoring. Both result from neurons firing in brains, but otherwise they are acquired very differently and operate very differently. We use both (although for us, instinctive behavior is greatly downplayed and most usually overruled except in terms of involuntary muscle control). Some animals are a little like us in their substantial use of learned behavior and use of previous experiences (e.g. elephants), and in creatively generating solutions to problems rather than relying on instinctive responses. (Chimpanzees in fact are known for coming up with multiple solutions to problems). You have yet to present any grounds except mere assertion for rejecting intelligence in animals like elephants, and you are merely displaying profound ignorance of biology and intelligence if you persist in your unjustified opinion.
You are indeed fooling yourself about your ideas.
I understand that English is your third(?) language, so some mistakes on your part are certainly excusable, but "symmetry / asymmetry" are not terms you want to use here. Although there are poetical/metaphorical usages that fit your meaning (e.g. a symmetry of crime and punishment, where the punishment fits the crime), this is not appropriate for math and other areas of science, where symmetry and asymmetry have specific meanings regarding axes or planes of symmetry and reversible operations. What you are claiming is that naturens are identified by a <= 1:1 or <=1.5:1 correspondence between needs and solutions, while intelligence corresponds to a greater number of solutions relative to needs. These are ratios, not symmetries.
Worse for you, intelligence is NOT characterized by solutions exceeding needs. This is trivially wrong: if your boss asked for a paper clip, he presumably wanted one, not three, otherwise he would have asked for three. If two cops are in a shootout and one yells for his buddy to throw him a gun, he may not appreciate being thrown three. "The Martian" (the book rather than the movie) is the quintessence of applying intelligence to think your way out of a problem, but with a couple of minor exceptions Mark Whatney notably does not come up with multiple workable solutions. He does come up with alternate potential solutions whenever the first (or second or third) fail to work, but the moment that he solves a problem, he moves on to solving other problems and stops generating additional solutions. By your definition, he applies almost no intelligence whatsoever, which is clearly wrong.
The creativity of a solution is a much better indication of intelligence in action than the number of solutions: as I already showed, supply in excess of need can indicate monumental stupidity in action ("bring me a barely subcritical mass of U-235") compared to generating a creative solution.
All this also means that you are wrong from #4 on. My points refute yours.
|
