NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,21:59) | | Quote (NoName @ Oct. 11 2015,13:48) | Edgar, what validates your insights and intuitions?
What experiments support your work?
What experiment(s) would falsify your results?
If the only support you have for your nonsense is your own high opinion of them, then you have nothing but unfounded opinion. That is not science.
That is not technology.
You cannot identify the necessary and sufficient conditions for intelligence.
You cannot provide an operational definition for intelligence.
Your "example" of 'hungry therefore eat' falls to the criticisms I and others have made. "Eat" is a problem that has far more than 3 possible solutions. Even in the most trivial, one can consume solid food, liquid food, or be fed via an intravenous drip. So eating is clearly, by your own standards 'intellen'.
You have not justification for your terms 'intellen' and 'naturen'.
Worse, you assume a large part of your "conclusion" when you assert without evidence, reason or logic, that intelligence is not a natural phenomenon.
What counts as an unnatural phenomenon? That which occurs occurs in nature. That's what the words mean. |
Edgar, what validates your insights and intuitions?
ME: My science. |
Non-responsive.
Not only is this not how a scientist would answer the question, it is based on your delusion that what you are doing is science. As shown above, by myself and others, what you are doing is in no way, shape, or form science.
| Quote | What experiments support your work?
ME: I have gioven you an empirical evidence that you yourself can confirm and test. |
Non-reponsive.
This is not how a genuine scientist would respond.
Your 'empirical evidence' has been blown out of the water for its absurdity. It is vague, overgeneralized, and has to be force-fit into your pseudo-analytic structures to be of value to you.
It simply does not do the job of being evidence.
Nor is it an experiment, nor does it suggest any experiment that might be performed. It presents neither a problem nor a solution, let alone a problem with existing scientific solutions to the actual scientific problem along with suggested tests to show how the (non-existent) proposed new solution could be validated or falsified.
You've got nothing.
| Quote | What experiment(s) would falsify your results?
ME: Any experiments that could show that intelligence is also a natural phenomenon, no categorization of intellen to naturen. |
All experiments show that intelligence is a natural phenomenon.
Please provide an experiment demonstrating the existence of any allegedly 'non-natural' phenomena.
Everything that exists is natural.
Or are you redefining terms in non-standard and unjustified ways again?
We are justified in treating all phenomena as natural barring evidence, reason, and logic that show a phenomenon that cannot be categorized as natural.
You have not done that.
You have, at most, asserted it.
It is not a priori true. It has not be demonstrated.
You lose, yet again.
And 'intellen' and 'naturen' are your own special terms, meaningless to the world at large, and, based on what we've seen here so far, meaningless to you as well.
They are rhetorical tricks, used ad hoc, inconsistently, lacking operational definition and explanatory power.
| Quote | If the only support you have for your nonsense is your own high opinion of them, then you have nothing but unfounded opinion. That is not science.
That is not technology.
ME: I don't care if you will not accept my new discoveries.
|
Then why are you presenting them? Why have you self-published them?
Acceptance of your ideas clearly matters very much to you. Yet there is not a single person anywhere, let alone any scientist, who has accepted your ideas.
You lose, yet again.
| Quote | You cannot identify the necessary and sufficient conditions for intelligence.
You cannot provide an operational definition for intelligence.ME: That is not true since I've already shown you the natural phenomenon, a symmetry and the intelligent phenomenon is asymmetry..that is so obvious as obvious as the sun! |
Except, of course, that you have not. Every single one of your examples has failed to meet the challenges of criticism raised against them here.
But even so, non-responsive, for what you have provided is not an operational definition. Not even remotely.
You misuse the terms 'symmetry' and 'asymmetry'. You juggle words, force fit examples into your predetermined result, usually by cutting off/ignoring all the bits that don't fit (as in "eating = McDonald's = symmetrical, as if Micky D's were the only place to eat).
| Quote | Your "example" of 'hungry therefore eat' falls to the criticisms I and others have made. "Eat" is a problem that has far more than 3 possible solutions. Even in the most trivial, one can consume solid food, liquid food, or be fed via an intravenous drip. So eating is clearly, by your own standards 'intellen'.
ME: I said "hungry" and "eat". I did not say the process of eating. Three processes of eating but one principle of eating to satisfy the hunger.
|
"Eating" is not a principle. Not in any standard or typical use of the term.
Again, ad hoc explanations selected to fit predetermined conclusions.
This is not how science works!
| Quote | You have not justification for your terms 'intellen' and 'naturen'.
ME: I did. |
Non-responsive.
You did not.
The terms have no operational meaning and can only be applied by you. Witness dazz's attempts and your inability to grapple with the issues he raises.
| Quote | Worse, you assume a large part of your "conclusion" when you assert without evidence, reason or logic, that intelligence is not a natural phenomenon.
ME: Yes, intelligence is part of nature but intelligent is not a natural phenomenon since there is also an intelligent phenomenon.. |
That is incoherent.
If intelligence is a natural phenomenon, then what justifies asserting that 'intelligent phenomenon' are not?
You're assuming your conclusion.
| Quote | What counts as an unnatural phenomenon? That which occurs occurs in nature. That's what the words mean.
ME: Unnatural phenomenon is an intelligent phenomenon but both of them are part of collective nature. |
Gibberish.
Not least, you are violating Ockham's Razor -- you are proliferating entities (and terms) needlessly.
If nature divides into intelligent and unintelligent phenomena, then we already have suitable descriptive terms. 'Naturen' and 'intellen' are junk notions serving no purpose other than to make you feel important.
But worse, you have no operational meanings, no principles (in the proper sense of the term) that can be applied to unambiguously divide the world into intelligent and non-intelligent phenomena.
IOW, you lack the ability to specify, precisely, unambiguously, repeatedly, the necessary and sufficient conditions for classifying any given phenomenon as intelligent or non-intelligent.
We do it all the time, but the principles to uniquely, unambiguously, and repeatedly perform such determinations, by anyone, with justification, is lacking.
You have not helped matters.
Your approach has made things worse.
You don't even know what the problem set contains. You do not know the prior work. You do not know logic or science.
So, again, you lose. You are wrong on all your points.
|
