JohnW
Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
|
| Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,14:02) | [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 14 2015,16:32][quote=NoName,Oct. 14 2015,08:07] | Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,08:54) | | Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,07:22) | | Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,08:07) | | Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,07:04) |
So your answer is "I have the answer somewhere else, trust me."
Oddly enough, we don't trust you. You've shown yourself to be profoundly untrustworthy.
I don't need to know how to distinguish instinct and intelligence -- I'm not the one making claims about them.
You are the one making claims about them, therefore you are the one who has to define his terms, justify them on the evidence, defend them against criticisms, and establish the validity of the claimed distinction.
You won't because you can't. You lack the necessary evidence, the necessary analytic skills, the necessary skills with logic and with reason.
"Hey, look over there" is not an answer, it's an admission of defeat. |
I am not a salesman here, thus, don't trust me. |
We don't. Even though it is abundantly clear that you are only in it for the personal fame and fortune. That was your answer to my question about what would change if the world adopted your notions into science.
Hardly respectable.
| Quote | | What I want you to do is to make a replacement for intelligence which is better than mine in science since you have a nerve to say that I am wrong. |
And again, that's not how it works.
We've shown your notions are wrong. No replacement needed.
No argument need be defeated solely by a replacement solution. It is often the case that all that is required is to show that the proposed solution fails.
In your case, even the proposed problem fails. The proposed solution is utter nonsense.
We've shown that, and that is all that is needed to demolish your claims.
How about you provide a good solid well-defined definition of the problem? You haven't even done that.
| Quote | And after that, categorize if waiting when hungry is intelligence or not.
That is it.
Write them in book so that I could buy. |
The answer is short, it can be provided here.
The answer is "it depends". How long a wait? Why the wait? Overweight people do not eat immediately when hungry. Refusing to satisfy their hunger to the point where they are no longer hungry is (part of) the intelligent solution to the problem of losing weight. As part of the problem of 'hungry'.
You keep insisting that the very complex set of issues involved in hunger and eating are simple and trivially susceptible to a single simple answer.
As I've shown, you are entirely wrong. You lack the necessary analytic skills to even begin to approach the genuine issues.
There is always a lag between the occurrence of hunger and the act of eating. Always. There are always choices -- eat or don't eat, eat now or eat later, eat what? eat where?
All are involved in any adequate consideration of the 'hunger-eat' notion.
All are ignored by you in your desperate attempt to collapse and force-fit every phenomena into your pre-selected idiotic notions.
You lose.
Deal with it. |
CRAZY! CRAZY! CRAZY!!
What would you do if you are hungry? Drink? or Eat? or Walk? or Fast? or Sing?
The answer is swift and simple: eat and that is naturen.
Now, that is symmetry. |
Of course you can make the result whatever you want it to be if you specify it precisely and then pretend that the result is fully general.
But that's not how it works.
That's one part of what we mean when we say you lack analytic ability.
It is patently absurd to counter an argument by shouting 'crazy, crazy, crazy!'
At the very least you need to substantiate that rejoinder.
You have not.
You have completely ignored the meat of my objection -- it is simply not true that every occurrence of hunger results in immediate consumption of something conveniently ready to hand. There is always a set of decisions to make. Decisions are a part of intelligence, thus eating always involves some degree of intelligence. Or, at the 'lowest' levels, perhaps a precursor to intelligence -- the difficulty here is determining at what point we have a creature that does not feel hunger but merely consumes. Such creatures exist, you know. You've been given at least one example.
So, the question remains -- hunger -> desire to eat. But desire to eat may be met in a wide variety of ways. People who are dieting, another category brought to your attention by myself and others, do not eat until satiated. They are always at least a little bit hungry. Yet they do not eat. By choice.
Thus, the simple-minded overly simplified, indeed, simplistic account "hungry therefore eat" does not serve you as you need it to.
You've been falsified. Your notions fail.
No matter how many times you stamp your feet or how loud you shout.
No matter how much you wish it were otherwise.
Wishing will avail you nothing against the brute adversity of facts.
You lose. You have failed.
You do not have any understanding of intelligence at all.
How could you? You have no understanding of hunger or of eating.
Oh, and yes, if one is hungry, drinking can be a satisfactory and fully intelligent reaction to the hunger.
I leave it to you to work out why. Or deny it and be embarrassed yet again by your errors.
Symmetry has nothing to do with determining if an entity or act is intelligent.
Nor does asymmetry have anything to do with determining if an entity or act is natural.
Do you understand me? |
For entertainment purposes, i wonder if we should concede Potato's point so he can move on. He's been bloody boring so far, but it might be amusing to see how he gets from "eating is not intelligent" to "therefore Jesus." It will probably be just as sad and pathetic as his first 22 pages, but we live in hope.
--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers
There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
