N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote | Culture changers love to be in on culture changing science, but they don't want to argue whether "evolutionary theory" has weaknesses or not. They more or less already spoke on where to go by describing how in the backwater something that never changes is always swirling, that in a jiffy can suck down an Institute like the DI, but they got lucky by my finding theory worth defending from their premise. That's how I have to look at it anyway, for good reason pertaining to culture change that already exists to stay in step with otherwise all the noise they asked for ends up working against them.
In my opinion what happens in places other than UD is far more important than opinions there, but to each their own. To me it just seems like screaming at each other in a closet many just as well you stay inside, so they can't hear you. What matters the most is what's happening outside, where people program models and work on all sorts of other things that keeps both science and religion going through time. |
What the heck is all that supposed to mean?
| Quote | The first sentence of the theory also took a few years to get right, in part because of absolutely needing how Genesis sums up the relationship. | Quote | | The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level combine to create another (Logos, animating) level of intelligence for it to control at the next, which results in emergent self-similar entities each systematically in their own image, likeness. |
|
So maybe in a century or three you'll have whipped it into a reasonable sentence and a decent idea. However, until then both the concept and the sentence remain atrocious.
image, likeness needs "or"
each / their non-agreement
systematically empty assertion
self-similar empty assertion
for it to control
at the next I think you mean at the new level, not at the next, but worse, you have not documented the existence of multiple levels of intelligence.
level of intelligence empty assertion, & intelligence is not defined & levels are not documented.
collective .... combine empty assertion
another (Logos, animating) level of intelligence awkward, and also unclear
certain features of the universe vapid without specification
"From Theory of Intelligent Design by Gary S. Gaulin" Needs a comma
"Conclusion
This theoretical model for explaining the origin of intelligence and the phenomenon of intelligent cause predicts that we are an intelligent design"
No, it doesn't predict that. You claim it, but without solid grounds for doing so.
", created by three (a trinity of) emergent self-similar levels of biological intelligence, as follows:"
You haven't demonstrated the three levels, nor their self similarity. How could molecules have biological intelligence, if such a thing existed? You are playing sleight of hand with "trinity/Trinity".
"(1) The behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular intelligence, whereby genome-based biological systems learn over time by replication of accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive descendant offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells, and is the primary source of learned instinctual behavior."
Empty assertion in the first "causes". How does an abstract quality self-assemble? What exactly are intelligence and molecular intelligence? (If you say molecular intelligence, you are clearly not using intelligence in any of its standard uses, so define and justify your terms.) What biological systems are not ultimately based on genomes? Replication is not tantamount to learning: even if we buy your metaphor, errors in replication and selection or drift are needed to "learn" something new. "Learned instincts" are an oxymoron according to standard understanding. What does "intelligence" add to the processes of growth and division of cells that is not supplied by standard explanations?
"(2) Molecular intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular intelligence. In sexual reproduction gamete cells from a father and mother are differently expressed as a sperm cell and egg cell that must combine into one complete cellular intelligence system, as required by the first level (molecular intelligence), which must embody both halves at the same time. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment cellular responses, migration and social-cell differentiation." You have not justified either molecular or cellular intelligence, and how does "molecular intelligence" control "our moment to moment cellular responses, migration and social-cell differentiation." I know what "cell differentiation" consists off, but what is "social-cell differentiation" and how is intelligence involved in all this? How is migration "controlled" by "molecular intelligence"? Setting aside some quasi-sexual methods of reproduction in some prokaryotes, sexual reproduction starts with male and female gametes, not male and female parents (ask any hermaphroditic animal or monoecious or monoicous plant). Fathers and mothers only happen with dioecious organisms, which is a fairly advanced form of sexual reproduction. Again, learn basic biology before pontificating. If sperm and egg have to combine in order to get a single complete "cellular intelligence), what happens in haploid and/or parthenogenetic organisms? Why "required"? Why "must embody"?
| Quote | | (3) Cellular intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular intelligence. A multicellular body is then controlled by a neural brain expressing all three levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly), and religious behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, migration and social differentiation. |
"Cellular intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular intelligence": three assertions and no justification for any of them, and at this point the rest is just a house of cards.
| Quote | | The combined knowledge of all three of these intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may stay to defend their nests "till death do they part". Otherwise merciless alligators fiercely protect their well-cared-for offspring who are taught how to lure nest building birds into range by putting sticks on their head and will scurry into her mouth when in danger. For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from an eternal conscious loving "spirit" existing at another level our multicellular intelligence level cannot directly experience. It is of course possible that one or both of the parents will later lose interest in the partnership, or they may have more offspring than they can possibly take care of, or none at all, but "for better or for worse" for such intelligence anywhere in the universe, there will nonetheless be the strong love we still need and cherish to guide us, forever through generations of time... |
Give up on the salmon: even in the few species that don't automatically die, most of them die and the rest bugger off immediately. None of them defend nests after spawning. Alligators... her is a disagreement in number (ditto their head), and father alligators eat their young happily enough, and mother alligators munch readily on other alligators' young, so alligators in general do not protect their young in general. "For such intelligence anywhere in the universe" is another empty assertion. Lots of organisms operate entirely without "love" in any recognizable sense: applying love and multicellular intelligence to oak trees, mushrooms, sponges, and corals and so on is nonsensical.
Way back when, you said | Quote | | The mechanism producing this emergence must here be explained as an "intelligent" phenomenon for it to be a coherent theory, hence "intelligent cause". |
The problem is that even if the emergence has to be an intelligent event for the theory to be coherent, that does not make the original event necessarily a result of intelligent causation. Instead, it just means that your idea (not a theory) is not coherent, which we've been telling you for ages now. In a sense, biological systems have accumulated information about how best to propagate specific lineages, but that level of information storage and even retrieval does not amount to intelligence in action according to standard definitions, and experiencing a mutation is not making a guess in any than the most metaphorical sense.
|
