NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 12 2014,08:13) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 12 2014,06:46) | You don't get it. The lack of an edu after your email is irrelevant. (Darwin wouldn't have had one, had they existed back then.) What you need, at minimum, to be taken seriously is:
1) Understand the basics of what you are criticizing,
2) Propose something that makes sense,
3) Either use terminology in standard ways or provide intelligible redefinitions, including operational definitions
4) Provide some supporting evidence and/or some ways to test your ideas. |
Where is YOURS?
Either come up with a viable theory of your own or stop complaining because you can't understand mine!!!! |
Again and again we have to correct you on this.
Are you incapable of learning?
Apparently, yes. It's either that or unwilling.
It is simply false that your 'theory' wins until and unless a 'better' theory is presented to overturn it. "I don't know/we don't know" are infinitely better answers than the flatulent cloud of malodorous nonsense you parade about, in your ignorance and proud arrogance. The only original notions in all your output are some of the mistakes.
Not least amongst the problems with this idiotic view is that you don't have a 'theory', you have no explanation of any sort, you have identified precisely zero phenomena which are best explained by 'intelligent cause' [and do please note that we have, and none of them can be dealt with by your nonsense], you have no evidence for you have no phenomena in focus or even in view, you have no faintest clue as to what intelligence is or how it works.
Far from illuminating anything about intelligence of any sort, your software forges merrily ahead modeling counter-factual forms and structure -- forms and structure that are counter-factual because we have known of decades that they do no apply to the cases you try to apply them to.
I'm speaking in particular of your idiocy that foraging behavior or 'intelligent movement' requires a complete collection of all possible movement paths before any movement can be made. Burridan's ass is not a problem in the real world, and that in and of itself is sufficient to refute your ridiculous, and ridiculously uninformed, assertions in this matter.
We have many many pieces of what together make progress towards an understanding of what intelligence is and how it works. They are founded on evidence, sound logic, and hard work by intelligent people who are generally aware of the work of others in the relevant fields -- all characteristics starkly lacking from your work and your 'cognitive life', if I may be forgiven that exaggeration of the reality at hand. In particular, it is generally known and accepted that 'intelligence' is too broad and poorly-delimited a term to serve as the core or foundation of any over-arching explanation for the set of behaviors and characteristics generally collected under that general term.
[Hey, yet another 'generalization' you use all the time while railing against the failures of those who rely on generalizations in their work. One of your more characteristic tics, and one so profoundly, dumbfoundingly, stupid as to defy belief that you could possibly be as ignorant as such a claim shows you to be. One can merely shake one's head in disbelief.]
You are fractally wrong. Your failures of basic comprehension run the gamut from sub-atomic and quantum physics [about which we note you have egregiously lied] through organic and inorganic chemistry, through thermodynamics and physics generally to viruses, 'primitive life forms', biology generally and in all specifics [do you even know where babies come from?] onwards and upwards to astronomy and large-scale physics.
A few simple points for you to attempt to grasp:
Life -- you're doing it wrong.
Intelligence -- you're doing it wrong.
Supporters -- you have none.
Validity -- that which your every assertion lacks.
|
