MrIntelligentDesign
Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
|
| Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 10 2015,21:31) | [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 10 2015,20:13] | Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 10 2015,13:35) | | Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,12:57) |
Absolutely, yes they show intelligent behavior. I have documented that they exhibit memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead, all of which are standardly accepted signs of intelligence.
In contrast, you have made unsupported assertions, on the supposed basis of some highly dubious terminology, which is in term based on some extremely problematic definitions created by you, which in turn rest on some more of your own bald unsupported assertions. So by all the rules of science, so far you've got nothing.
In addition, as mentioned earlier, I used more mathematical operators than you did, so by your standards my math is better. :) |
LOL! That is the problem with you guys.
You had just simply concluded that the signs or patterns of "intelligence" are to "...exhibit memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead".
Since you did not have any clue on intelligence, you had just simply said that those are patterns for intelligence. |
Hello Edgar,
I understand that you think you have a whole new definition of intelligence. In my view, a) you are wrong, and b) you haven't made a case for either the old standard views being wrong or your new views being correct.
You have not made the case for distinguishing intelligent actions in humans from intelligent actions in animals. Your concept of symmetry is garbled and arbitrary, and in fact doesn't work for the octopus, African hunting dogs, pack hunting by wolves, tool use by chimpanzees and crows, and so forth and so on: in all cases they are creating multiple solutions to problems, and you are only able to create a 1:1 correspondence by ad hoc pleading and arbitrary and unjustifiable categorization.
Memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead are clearly intelligent actions: this is not a matter of "not having a clue about intelligence", but they are used as diagnostic criteria for intelligent behavior by everyone (except you) that has thought about the matter. Intelligent behavior in animals is different in quantity but not in kind from similar intelligent behavior in humans: if you deny it in them, then you deny it in us as well.
| Quote | Now, what are the patterns for natural?
"...exhibit memory will be no memory?
, learning will be no learning?
, problem-solving will be no solution?
, tool use will be no tools?
, and planning ahead will be no plan??
BUT THE ABOVE were all patterns for failures! |
Your point is unclear there. I'm not denying those in humans or animals: learning, problem-solving and so forth appear to be natural occurrences of intelligent behavior in both.
However, I disagree that something has to be a success to be intelligent: lots of intelligent attempts at problem solving fail. Did Einstein stop being an intelligent physicist in his later decades because he never came up with a Grand Unified Theory for physics?
| Quote | But for us to live or to exist, that are normal for all of us to do like eating because we are hungry!
"exhibit memory since we really have no memory
, learn since we still don't know nature
, solve problem since every second is problem to us
, use tool since we also use our hands as tools
, and to plan since we don't have really plan
THUS, they are all symmetrical phenomenon..and not intelligence!
Thus, you are not talking intelligence but natural phenomenon! |
Again, your point is unclear.
However, I will point out again that if you go to a restaurant to eat you are creating from multiple solutions to the problem of being hungry, quite apart from having multiple intelligent communications with waitstaff, intelligently resolving navigation and travel problems in getting to the restaurant, non-instinctively opening the door to the restaurant, and so forth.
Also, you have yet to demonstrate that intelligence is not a natural phenomenon. |
You have no idea of your own intelligence! And you have no idea or diving line between natural phenomenon!
As I said that if you use simple math, you can simply know the real intelliogence.
Your usage of intelligence and the patterns of intelligence from you are not intelligence. They are best called as instinct or slightly excessive natural phenomena.
The reason why I am giving you the eat-hungry analogy since that is the most, closed, easiest empirical evidence that we know to the real world and reality.
Hungry? is problem...Eat? is solution...that is symmetrical...that is natural phenomenon or naturen
Now, since we had already established that symmetry is natural phenomenon,then, asymmetry is intelligence or intellen. But if we use limit or range, we can compute calculate the range of instinct and intellen phenomenon.
Thus to say and claim that "...exhibit memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead,..", is not intelligence or not even patterns/signs of intelligence since they (...exhibit memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead), are necessary for any human to have memory, to learn, to solve problem, to use tool and to plan FOR THOSE HUMANS TO LIVE - a naturen!
Remember that this kind of analytical science was not being taught in science schools that is why ToE had made 80 definitions of intelligence and yet dismissed intelligence in all explanations in science.
Did you get me? Do you understand?
|
