AE Public Forum
Antievolution.org is the critic's resource on antievolution. The public bulletin board is a lightly moderated place for general discussions, using a set of rules first implemented in 1992 for the Fidonet "Evolution Echo".
Updated: 7 hours 7 min ago
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Soapy Sam
Quote We are not dealing with reason here, but indoctrination and polarising rhetoric feeding rage-filled contempt that has become artificially, willfully obtuse.
*cough*Projection!
Quote We are not dealing with reason here, but indoctrination and polarising rhetoric feeding rage-filled contempt that has become artificially, willfully obtuse.
*cough*Projection!
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Glen Davidson
I'd add that we who accept evolution knowledgeably, Xians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, agnostics, whatever, do have one certainty, which is that we ought to follow epistemological standards as objectively as possible. Of course we do have some certainty about evolution as the best explanation thus far (and realistically, that it could be entirely overthrown seems about as unlikely as that the conservation of momentum will be), just as we do about the rest of established science.
Nothing wrong with that, certainly. Those who are inconsistent in the application of the standards of evidence do have a problem.
Glen Davidson
I'd add that we who accept evolution knowledgeably, Xians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, agnostics, whatever, do have one certainty, which is that we ought to follow epistemological standards as objectively as possible. Of course we do have some certainty about evolution as the best explanation thus far (and realistically, that it could be entirely overthrown seems about as unlikely as that the conservation of momentum will be), just as we do about the rest of established science.
Nothing wrong with that, certainly. Those who are inconsistent in the application of the standards of evidence do have a problem.
Glen Davidson
Categories: AE Public BB
Science Break
Post by dvunkannon
25,000 generations of evolution used to explain the existence of modularity in the brain.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release....300.htm
Hod Lipson is one of those authors I look for.
Basic finding is that including a 'wiring cost' induces the formation of modular networks.
25,000 generations of evolution used to explain the existence of modularity in the brain.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release....300.htm
Hod Lipson is one of those authors I look for.
Basic finding is that including a 'wiring cost' induces the formation of modular networks.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Glen Davidson
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 30 2013,07:32)KairosFocus defines selective hyper skepticism again: Quote that fallacy which seeks to reject or dismiss otherwise credible evidence by demanding an inappropriately high type or degree of warrant not applicable to matters of fact, i.e. the general type of question being discussed. Especially, where the same standard is not exerted in assessing substantially parallel cases that make claims that one is inclined to accept.
The irony just burns.
What irony? That reasonable standard applies exactly to Muslims, Buddhists, animists, Darwinists, atheists, Jews, and New Agers alike. KF never fails to apply it equally to others (ok, not equally so much as righteously), don't you forget it!
As far as that goes, I'm not much impressed by claims that Jesus didn't exist (obviously I mean a man), or that at least there isn't fairly good evidence that he did, but KF's list of "evidences" doesn't even distinguish between sheer miracle and rather reasonable narrative that seems likely to have been at least inspired by a real event. And the ID BS is straight out of scholasticism (remember Torley's attempt to link ID with medieval philosophy? Like it ever left it), if deliberately twisted to be even more favorable to ID than even scholasticism's unwarranted assumptions are.
But Corny's just as concerned about open-mindedness, as one would expect for a tendentious reactionary whose common tactic is to take any news of evolution and point out, as any reasonable person would, that it's obviously impossible for evolution to do. The evidence that it did and that the hallmarks of design, such as rationality and forethought, are missing in wild-type life mean not a damn thing to such a scoundrel. No explanation for it, just complete denial of same (or idiotic acceptance of evolutionary limits as evidence for evolution, but not for those limits, which are transcended by design, if you're Behe), such is ID open-mindedness.
He open-mindedly lies (if he's stupid/in denial enough to believe, sort of, he still has no excuse for such intellectual dishonesty/stupidity, given his opportunities to learn):
Quote Evolutionists, on the other hand, are much more certain and there is a never-ending drum roll of high truth claims from their camp. These truth claims are unwarranted and it is them, rather than the theory itself, that are the problem. So I’m not so much concerned about the theory itself as I am about the certainty with which it is presented.
How many times have these IDiots complained about the tentative words used so often in discussions of evolution? Don't know about Corny specifically, but again, he has no excuse not to realize how tentative it is treated as being, other than that he's a bigot who typically lies about "evolutionists," their motives, and their evidence. But anyway, he's concerned about our certainty, and helpfully points out that:
Quote Jesus died for our sins and without Him we have no hope.
So, uh, Corny's uncertain about that? Is that a fair judgment?
Just as kindly he is certain that we don't know his religious tripe:
Quote Here’s a suggestion, read one of the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). Read a page a day and it will require only a month or two. It will make you more knowledgeable of what is, after all, the most influential book ever written. Shouldn’t you have some knowledge of what that book actually says?
Why no, how thoughtless of me, I have never read the Gospels, you know, except for all of them, early on. Fortunately, though, he'd never jump to an unwarranted conclusion, being a completely sanctimonious ignorant dolt.
But please don't tie evolution to Xianity. Like we're as stupid as you are, Corny. Xianity fails with or without evolution, at least on normal epistemological grounds (I'm trying not to attack anyone's religious faith, but when this jerk is lying all over the place about everything, I have to call it as I see it), and it's his pigheaded certainty that evolution exists to undermine Xianity that causes him to link the two. Sure, many on the "new atheist" side do as much, but what of that?
Corny, so carefully trying to unpack the certainties that he projects onto others. As big a hypocrite as exists among a whole movement of hypocrites.
Glen Davidson
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 30 2013,07:32)KairosFocus defines selective hyper skepticism again: Quote that fallacy which seeks to reject or dismiss otherwise credible evidence by demanding an inappropriately high type or degree of warrant not applicable to matters of fact, i.e. the general type of question being discussed. Especially, where the same standard is not exerted in assessing substantially parallel cases that make claims that one is inclined to accept.
The irony just burns.
What irony? That reasonable standard applies exactly to Muslims, Buddhists, animists, Darwinists, atheists, Jews, and New Agers alike. KF never fails to apply it equally to others (ok, not equally so much as righteously), don't you forget it!
As far as that goes, I'm not much impressed by claims that Jesus didn't exist (obviously I mean a man), or that at least there isn't fairly good evidence that he did, but KF's list of "evidences" doesn't even distinguish between sheer miracle and rather reasonable narrative that seems likely to have been at least inspired by a real event. And the ID BS is straight out of scholasticism (remember Torley's attempt to link ID with medieval philosophy? Like it ever left it), if deliberately twisted to be even more favorable to ID than even scholasticism's unwarranted assumptions are.
But Corny's just as concerned about open-mindedness, as one would expect for a tendentious reactionary whose common tactic is to take any news of evolution and point out, as any reasonable person would, that it's obviously impossible for evolution to do. The evidence that it did and that the hallmarks of design, such as rationality and forethought, are missing in wild-type life mean not a damn thing to such a scoundrel. No explanation for it, just complete denial of same (or idiotic acceptance of evolutionary limits as evidence for evolution, but not for those limits, which are transcended by design, if you're Behe), such is ID open-mindedness.
He open-mindedly lies (if he's stupid/in denial enough to believe, sort of, he still has no excuse for such intellectual dishonesty/stupidity, given his opportunities to learn):
Quote Evolutionists, on the other hand, are much more certain and there is a never-ending drum roll of high truth claims from their camp. These truth claims are unwarranted and it is them, rather than the theory itself, that are the problem. So I’m not so much concerned about the theory itself as I am about the certainty with which it is presented.
How many times have these IDiots complained about the tentative words used so often in discussions of evolution? Don't know about Corny specifically, but again, he has no excuse not to realize how tentative it is treated as being, other than that he's a bigot who typically lies about "evolutionists," their motives, and their evidence. But anyway, he's concerned about our certainty, and helpfully points out that:
Quote Jesus died for our sins and without Him we have no hope.
So, uh, Corny's uncertain about that? Is that a fair judgment?
Just as kindly he is certain that we don't know his religious tripe:
Quote Here’s a suggestion, read one of the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). Read a page a day and it will require only a month or two. It will make you more knowledgeable of what is, after all, the most influential book ever written. Shouldn’t you have some knowledge of what that book actually says?
Why no, how thoughtless of me, I have never read the Gospels, you know, except for all of them, early on. Fortunately, though, he'd never jump to an unwarranted conclusion, being a completely sanctimonious ignorant dolt.
But please don't tie evolution to Xianity. Like we're as stupid as you are, Corny. Xianity fails with or without evolution, at least on normal epistemological grounds (I'm trying not to attack anyone's religious faith, but when this jerk is lying all over the place about everything, I have to call it as I see it), and it's his pigheaded certainty that evolution exists to undermine Xianity that causes him to link the two. Sure, many on the "new atheist" side do as much, but what of that?
Corny, so carefully trying to unpack the certainties that he projects onto others. As big a hypocrite as exists among a whole movement of hypocrites.
Glen Davidson
Categories: AE Public BB
Wildlife
Post by Robin
Quote (The whole truth @ Jan. 24 2013,00:33)Way cool:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs......84.html
That is way cool! Thanks for sharing that TWT!
Quote (The whole truth @ Jan. 24 2013,00:33)Way cool:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs......84.html
That is way cool! Thanks for sharing that TWT!
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by fnxtr
Effinell what is it about IDC that draws pompous windbags to it like flies to excrement? FL, KF, GI Joe, this clown... is it the smell?
Effinell what is it about IDC that draws pompous windbags to it like flies to excrement? FL, KF, GI Joe, this clown... is it the smell?
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Erasmus, FCD
gary can you program your bug to "choose" to dance and sing some little ditty it made up about how the ravens are going to win the superbowl?
that would be pretty cool. and certainly intelligently caused right? think i am getting the hang of this new terminology now.
gary can you program your bug to "choose" to dance and sing some little ditty it made up about how the ravens are going to win the superbowl?
that would be pretty cool. and certainly intelligently caused right? think i am getting the hang of this new terminology now.
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by tsig
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 29 2013,14:58) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 29 2013,00:38) Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 28 2013,15:51) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,17:33) Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 15 2013,19:27) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 13 2013,00:10) Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 09 2013,04:43)Joe, on the 'WJM - atheists are dishonest, thick and/or irrational' thread
Quote I know how to test Intelligent Design evolution. And no one appears to know how to test blind watchmaker evolution.
Strange, that…
Care to reveal your methodology?
Already have- more than once, too.
How to test and falsify ID
That's bullshit, Joe. Dembski's Explanatory Filter - Newton's First Rule, for that matter - are no help to you here. You don't 'test ID' by attempting to demonstrate 'blind and undirected processes' doing evolution, regardless whether that attempt succeeds or fails.
You need a method of reliably distinguishing ID causes from 'natural' ones in biological history. You haven't got one.
Fuck you soapy sam. Your position doesn't have any methodology beyond "it ain't designed no matter what!"
Fuck yourself, old bean. You think that is all evolutionary theory amounts to, so you will forever rail helplessly against it, with your convincing counterargument: "it is, I tells ya".
Whatever asshole. It's a fact that you cannot produce any positive evidence tat accumulations of genetic accidents didit.
Did what? What is your evidence that a designer did "it"? Are we back to the Explanatory Filter again?
The Explanatory Filter got plugged up with tard so they went to the Backup EF then it blew up with dogmite* so I think there's no Filter of any kind left, it's just all science** all the time.
*dogma laced with thermite
**for certain values of science
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 29 2013,14:58) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 29 2013,00:38) Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 28 2013,15:51) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,17:33) Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 15 2013,19:27) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 13 2013,00:10) Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 09 2013,04:43)Joe, on the 'WJM - atheists are dishonest, thick and/or irrational' thread
Quote I know how to test Intelligent Design evolution. And no one appears to know how to test blind watchmaker evolution.
Strange, that…
Care to reveal your methodology?
Already have- more than once, too.
How to test and falsify ID
That's bullshit, Joe. Dembski's Explanatory Filter - Newton's First Rule, for that matter - are no help to you here. You don't 'test ID' by attempting to demonstrate 'blind and undirected processes' doing evolution, regardless whether that attempt succeeds or fails.
You need a method of reliably distinguishing ID causes from 'natural' ones in biological history. You haven't got one.
Fuck you soapy sam. Your position doesn't have any methodology beyond "it ain't designed no matter what!"
Fuck yourself, old bean. You think that is all evolutionary theory amounts to, so you will forever rail helplessly against it, with your convincing counterargument: "it is, I tells ya".
Whatever asshole. It's a fact that you cannot produce any positive evidence tat accumulations of genetic accidents didit.
Did what? What is your evidence that a designer did "it"? Are we back to the Explanatory Filter again?
The Explanatory Filter got plugged up with tard so they went to the Backup EF then it blew up with dogmite* so I think there's no Filter of any kind left, it's just all science** all the time.
*dogma laced with thermite
**for certain values of science
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by tsig
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,14:18) Quote contacting the admin of my blog network and accusing me of lying, threatening to attack me, threatening my family, stealing images of me and using them for your own avatar, for example
1- You do lie
2- You deserve to have your ass kicked for all the lies you spew
3- I never threatened your family
4- I didn't steal your picture. YOU made it public. YOU posted it on the intertubes
The "I didn't do it but if I did you totally deserved it" defense.
:(
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,14:18) Quote contacting the admin of my blog network and accusing me of lying, threatening to attack me, threatening my family, stealing images of me and using them for your own avatar, for example
1- You do lie
2- You deserve to have your ass kicked for all the lies you spew
3- I never threatened your family
4- I didn't steal your picture. YOU made it public. YOU posted it on the intertubes
The "I didn't do it but if I did you totally deserved it" defense.
:(
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by k.e..
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 28 2013,16:12)A hypothesis...
is a testable description of an event or phenomenon.
can be used to discriminate between correct and incorrect descriptions of the phenomenon.
can be determined to be incorrect.
I've been teaching and talking about science for a long bloody time now and I haven't seen any descriptions of 'hypothesis' that vary from the above.
Oh and, if a word is being used incorrectly, then people should start using the correct word, not change the definition of the wrong word to fit. That is science by semantics and never actually works (see Behe's testimony at the Kitzmiller trial).
As an aside (and directly addressing your 'work') have you or have you not corrected the fundamental mistake about natural selection you wrote about way back when all this started?
No HOMO! He means the other hyperthesis - the one with the grand delusions.
He's going for the trifecta
-Straw man proposal
-False analogy
-Etymological fallacy
Which are all accectable for someone who thinks scientists don't write (lots) of science papers that get published by reputable organisations.
How many scientific papers have you had published GG?
Oh and as for that no talent dick from the discotute you invited, was it Casey Unibrow ? Argumentum ad maximus ignoratum unpopulum
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 28 2013,16:12)A hypothesis...
is a testable description of an event or phenomenon.
can be used to discriminate between correct and incorrect descriptions of the phenomenon.
can be determined to be incorrect.
I've been teaching and talking about science for a long bloody time now and I haven't seen any descriptions of 'hypothesis' that vary from the above.
Oh and, if a word is being used incorrectly, then people should start using the correct word, not change the definition of the wrong word to fit. That is science by semantics and never actually works (see Behe's testimony at the Kitzmiller trial).
As an aside (and directly addressing your 'work') have you or have you not corrected the fundamental mistake about natural selection you wrote about way back when all this started?
No HOMO! He means the other hyperthesis - the one with the grand delusions.
He's going for the trifecta
-Straw man proposal
-False analogy
-Etymological fallacy
Which are all accectable for someone who thinks scientists don't write (lots) of science papers that get published by reputable organisations.
How many scientific papers have you had published GG?
Oh and as for that no talent dick from the discotute you invited, was it Casey Unibrow ? Argumentum ad maximus ignoratum unpopulum
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by k.e..
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 28 2013,17:33) Quote There already are scientists studying cellular intelligence. Molecular intelligence has already been slightly defined and is likewise in need of a proper definition for all of biology. This theory makes that easy too. Only problem is there are then events where intelligence clearly comes from another intelligence, which of course gets into all sorts of sordid politics that can rip a person's life apart. ???
you are crazier than a wild donkey in full rut braying at the easter full moon drunk on corn liquor makins god damn i swear
Damn THAT WAS YOU I saw the other night!!!!!
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 28 2013,17:33) Quote There already are scientists studying cellular intelligence. Molecular intelligence has already been slightly defined and is likewise in need of a proper definition for all of biology. This theory makes that easy too. Only problem is there are then events where intelligence clearly comes from another intelligence, which of course gets into all sorts of sordid politics that can rip a person's life apart. ???
you are crazier than a wild donkey in full rut braying at the easter full moon drunk on corn liquor makins god damn i swear
Damn THAT WAS YOU I saw the other night!!!!!
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Quack
Quote ...self-organization in complex systems". (Wikipedia)Emergence. Self-organization, not "Intelligent Design". Got it?
This morning opening once again my favourite book, "A Different Universe" by Robert B. Laughlin , I find
Quote ... reliable cause-and-effect relationships in the natural world have something to tell us about ourselves, in that they owe this reliability to principles of organization rather than microscopic rules. The laws of nature that we care about, in other words, emerge through collective self-organization and really do not require knowledge of their component parts to be comprehended and exploited. ... I then asked him if whether legislatures and corporate boards made laws or were made by laws, and he immediately saw the problem.
You are not even licking their toes.
A great problem is the way you mingle words. I was thinking about that the other day, and had in mind making a comment poising your word saladism against the writings of Darwin and Freud, both clear thinkers and great literalists.
Have you ever been impressed with anything you yourself have written?
Not for bragging, that's not my style, but a couple of times in the past, I have opened a tekst and found it both interesting, well and clearly written in a quite good English. I wondere who migh have written it. It looked better that anything I thought I could have done, but I could only conclude it was my own anyway. An interesing experience. I consider modesty more like a problem than a virtue. At my age, prestige and status no longer matters.
I have a programming problem, probably a very banal one. I have solved it but it is somewhat clumsy and I can see the outline of a better solution in my mind. But I am unable to create an algorithm on paper; the only way I can do it is by tedious and tiresome debugging of a concept. I believe you would find it easy.
Quote ...self-organization in complex systems". (Wikipedia)Emergence. Self-organization, not "Intelligent Design". Got it?
This morning opening once again my favourite book, "A Different Universe" by Robert B. Laughlin , I find
Quote ... reliable cause-and-effect relationships in the natural world have something to tell us about ourselves, in that they owe this reliability to principles of organization rather than microscopic rules. The laws of nature that we care about, in other words, emerge through collective self-organization and really do not require knowledge of their component parts to be comprehended and exploited. ... I then asked him if whether legislatures and corporate boards made laws or were made by laws, and he immediately saw the problem.
You are not even licking their toes.
A great problem is the way you mingle words. I was thinking about that the other day, and had in mind making a comment poising your word saladism against the writings of Darwin and Freud, both clear thinkers and great literalists.
Have you ever been impressed with anything you yourself have written?
Not for bragging, that's not my style, but a couple of times in the past, I have opened a tekst and found it both interesting, well and clearly written in a quite good English. I wondere who migh have written it. It looked better that anything I thought I could have done, but I could only conclude it was my own anyway. An interesing experience. I consider modesty more like a problem than a virtue. At my age, prestige and status no longer matters.
I have a programming problem, probably a very banal one. I have solved it but it is somewhat clumsy and I can see the outline of a better solution in my mind. But I am unable to create an algorithm on paper; the only way I can do it is by tedious and tiresome debugging of a concept. I believe you would find it easy.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Glen Davidson
He's an animist.
The next great development in science, of course.
Glen Davidson
He's an animist.
The next great development in science, of course.
Glen Davidson
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 28 2013,22:29)What physicists use the word "emergence" to mean is not the same thing as what you're using it to mean.
In physics, an emergent property is something that occurs at one scale simply as a result of the properties possessed by the particles or objects at a smaller scale.
For example, electrons, neutrons, and protons have measurable properties. Those properties cause them to combine into atoms, which have properties that aren't directly evident from those of the components, but are directly caused by them.
You seem to be talking about something intelligent causing something else intelligent to appear, although it's not clear to me if you're saying this is deliberate or a side effect. Certainly the offspring of something with a level of intelligence will tend to have a level of intelligence not a whole lot different than that of the parent, but that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about.
But anyway, inserting the concept of intelligence into physics, chemistry, and even biology, would add complications into figuring out what to expect, so unless doing so also somehow improves the predictability of those systems, that would be counterproductive.
Now, that could of course be countered by describing the testable predictions of your concept that differ from those of the current theory, and explaining how the those predictions follow logically from it. That's what is needed before your concept would become accepted to people who are familiar with the subject matter. Without that any discussion about it will just go in circles like it's been doing here.
I repeat, since you seem to have missed this point, that means predictions that are different from those of current theory; merely again summarizing stuff that's already known and covered by the current theory will not accomplish that. Inserting the word "intelligence" into those summaries without explaining what that insertion adds to the understanding of the subject matter, will not accomplish the goal, either.
Henry
I already very well understand how the word "emergent" is used in science, don't need to be told what it means as though I'm scientifically ignorant. I am properly using the word, that's all that matters, and all you should need to know to get it right. Readers who disagree are likely in need of finding a supernatural deity instead of objectively reading and understanding what I wrote, which is their fault, not mine.
Whether it is deliberate or a side effect is here semantics, depending on how anthropomorphic you want to be. It's like saying "A zygote deliberately (as opposed to unintentionally or accidentally) produces a multicellular organism". Saying "The side effect of a zygote is a multicellular organism." does not seem to work any better.
In my opinion a reasonable and objective scientist expects me to use the best possible word to describe the process being explained, and do not want to read hundreds of pages of additional text to address a multitude of things they already know or have no interest in. The last time I started addressing all the possible issues like these the theory quickly turned into a can of worms that would take 10 or more years to finish, then by then you and others would think up another 10 years worth of basically religious issues to address.
In order to get anything at all finished I have to explain this theory only. What other theories conclude either way are scientifically irrelevant anyway. That would only matter where this theory is to replace an already established scientific theory that already explains the phenomenon of "intelligent cause".
It should be obvious enough to scientists that this theory is coherent, does not exist in physics, or anywhere else in science. That's all that scientifically matters, for this to be a new scientific theory that stands on its own scientific merit.
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 28 2013,22:29)What physicists use the word "emergence" to mean is not the same thing as what you're using it to mean.
In physics, an emergent property is something that occurs at one scale simply as a result of the properties possessed by the particles or objects at a smaller scale.
For example, electrons, neutrons, and protons have measurable properties. Those properties cause them to combine into atoms, which have properties that aren't directly evident from those of the components, but are directly caused by them.
You seem to be talking about something intelligent causing something else intelligent to appear, although it's not clear to me if you're saying this is deliberate or a side effect. Certainly the offspring of something with a level of intelligence will tend to have a level of intelligence not a whole lot different than that of the parent, but that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about.
But anyway, inserting the concept of intelligence into physics, chemistry, and even biology, would add complications into figuring out what to expect, so unless doing so also somehow improves the predictability of those systems, that would be counterproductive.
Now, that could of course be countered by describing the testable predictions of your concept that differ from those of the current theory, and explaining how the those predictions follow logically from it. That's what is needed before your concept would become accepted to people who are familiar with the subject matter. Without that any discussion about it will just go in circles like it's been doing here.
I repeat, since you seem to have missed this point, that means predictions that are different from those of current theory; merely again summarizing stuff that's already known and covered by the current theory will not accomplish that. Inserting the word "intelligence" into those summaries without explaining what that insertion adds to the understanding of the subject matter, will not accomplish the goal, either.
Henry
I already very well understand how the word "emergent" is used in science, don't need to be told what it means as though I'm scientifically ignorant. I am properly using the word, that's all that matters, and all you should need to know to get it right. Readers who disagree are likely in need of finding a supernatural deity instead of objectively reading and understanding what I wrote, which is their fault, not mine.
Whether it is deliberate or a side effect is here semantics, depending on how anthropomorphic you want to be. It's like saying "A zygote deliberately (as opposed to unintentionally or accidentally) produces a multicellular organism". Saying "The side effect of a zygote is a multicellular organism." does not seem to work any better.
In my opinion a reasonable and objective scientist expects me to use the best possible word to describe the process being explained, and do not want to read hundreds of pages of additional text to address a multitude of things they already know or have no interest in. The last time I started addressing all the possible issues like these the theory quickly turned into a can of worms that would take 10 or more years to finish, then by then you and others would think up another 10 years worth of basically religious issues to address.
In order to get anything at all finished I have to explain this theory only. What other theories conclude either way are scientifically irrelevant anyway. That would only matter where this theory is to replace an already established scientific theory that already explains the phenomenon of "intelligent cause".
It should be obvious enough to scientists that this theory is coherent, does not exist in physics, or anywhere else in science. That's all that scientifically matters, for this to be a new scientific theory that stands on its own scientific merit.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by OgreMkV
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 28 2013,23:24) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 28 2013,17:33) Quote (blipey @ Jan. 28 2013,17:11)GARY!!! Focus!
What novel and author introduced the theory of relativity? I'm very interested in learning about it and want to check it out at the library.
I have no idea what your point is, but I'm not in the mood for head-games.
Seriously??? Gary, this directly addresses one of your major themes. So: you can stop now. The game is over; it was a nice run while it lasted but it's done. Who are you?
I'm honestly not sure which would be more pathetic, that Gigi actually is serious or that someone wrote and edited that tripe as the ultimate Poe...
which it would be, admittedly.
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 28 2013,23:24) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 28 2013,17:33) Quote (blipey @ Jan. 28 2013,17:11)GARY!!! Focus!
What novel and author introduced the theory of relativity? I'm very interested in learning about it and want to check it out at the library.
I have no idea what your point is, but I'm not in the mood for head-games.
Seriously??? Gary, this directly addresses one of your major themes. So: you can stop now. The game is over; it was a nice run while it lasted but it's done. Who are you?
I'm honestly not sure which would be more pathetic, that Gigi actually is serious or that someone wrote and edited that tripe as the ultimate Poe...
which it would be, admittedly.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by blipey
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 28 2013,17:33) Quote (blipey @ Jan. 28 2013,17:11)GARY!!! Focus!
What novel and author introduced the theory of relativity? I'm very interested in learning about it and want to check it out at the library.
I have no idea what your point is, but I'm not in the mood for head-games.
Seriously??? Gary, this directly addresses one of your major themes. So: you can stop now. The game is over; it was a nice run while it lasted but it's done. Who are you?
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 28 2013,17:33) Quote (blipey @ Jan. 28 2013,17:11)GARY!!! Focus!
What novel and author introduced the theory of relativity? I'm very interested in learning about it and want to check it out at the library.
I have no idea what your point is, but I'm not in the mood for head-games.
Seriously??? Gary, this directly addresses one of your major themes. So: you can stop now. The game is over; it was a nice run while it lasted but it's done. Who are you?
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Henry J
What physicists use the word "emergence" to mean is not the same thing as what you're using it to mean.
In physics, an emergent property is something that occurs at one scale simply as a result of the properties possessed by the particles or objects at a smaller scale.
For example, electrons, neutrons, and protons have measurable properties. Those properties cause them to combine into atoms, which have properties that aren't directly evident from those of the components, but are directly caused by them.
You seem to be talking about something intelligent causing something else intelligent to appear, although it's not clear to me if you're saying this is deliberate or a side effect. Certainly the offspring of something with a level of intelligence will tend to have a level of intelligence not a whole lot different than that of the parent, but that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about.
But anyway, inserting the concept of intelligence into physics, chemistry, and even biology, would add complications into figuring out what to expect, so unless doing so also somehow improves the predictability of those systems, that would be counterproductive.
Now, that could of course be countered by describing the testable predictions of your concept that differ from those of the current theory, and explaining how the those predictions follow logically from it. That's what is needed before your concept would become accepted to people who are familiar with the subject matter. Without that any discussion about it will just go in circles like it's been doing here.
I repeat, since you seem to have missed this point, that means predictions that are different from those of current theory; merely again summarizing stuff that's already known and covered by the current theory will not accomplish that. Inserting the word "intelligence" into those summaries without explaining what that insertion adds to the understanding of the subject matter, will not accomplish the goal, either.
Henry
What physicists use the word "emergence" to mean is not the same thing as what you're using it to mean.
In physics, an emergent property is something that occurs at one scale simply as a result of the properties possessed by the particles or objects at a smaller scale.
For example, electrons, neutrons, and protons have measurable properties. Those properties cause them to combine into atoms, which have properties that aren't directly evident from those of the components, but are directly caused by them.
You seem to be talking about something intelligent causing something else intelligent to appear, although it's not clear to me if you're saying this is deliberate or a side effect. Certainly the offspring of something with a level of intelligence will tend to have a level of intelligence not a whole lot different than that of the parent, but that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about.
But anyway, inserting the concept of intelligence into physics, chemistry, and even biology, would add complications into figuring out what to expect, so unless doing so also somehow improves the predictability of those systems, that would be counterproductive.
Now, that could of course be countered by describing the testable predictions of your concept that differ from those of the current theory, and explaining how the those predictions follow logically from it. That's what is needed before your concept would become accepted to people who are familiar with the subject matter. Without that any discussion about it will just go in circles like it's been doing here.
I repeat, since you seem to have missed this point, that means predictions that are different from those of current theory; merely again summarizing stuff that's already known and covered by the current theory will not accomplish that. Inserting the word "intelligence" into those summaries without explaining what that insertion adds to the understanding of the subject matter, will not accomplish the goal, either.
Henry
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by Occam's Aftershave
Meanwhile at Corny's place, JoeTard continues to show what a true ID scientist is made of:
Quote Joe G: I am anti-abortion. However if thorton, troy, oleg or TWT got someone pregnant, I would agree that an abortion would be the best solution.
link
Quote No, kicking his ass would be the best way to respond.
link
All science all the time from JoeTard.
Meanwhile at Corny's place, JoeTard continues to show what a true ID scientist is made of:
Quote Joe G: I am anti-abortion. However if thorton, troy, oleg or TWT got someone pregnant, I would agree that an abortion would be the best solution.
link
Quote No, kicking his ass would be the best way to respond.
link
All science all the time from JoeTard.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 28 2013,20:22) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 29 2013,00:44) Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 28 2013,18:09)Gary, we want to know more about your time as an ordained minister in the Church of Sex.
I only want to know more about your life as a prostitute while living in the psychiatric hospital you were locked up in, for much of your life.
Had its ups and downs.
The hours were good but, oh, the smoked salmon was appalling.
Now your turn....it's rare we get anyone daft enough to enroll as a mail-order man of the cloth. And for such a kinky outfit, too!
It's not MY fault I'm so scientifically sexy that women go crazy all around me when I theorize to them.
When that happens I have to run out the back door of the storefront church then dive into an awaiting getaway car, while my wife holds them back for me:
Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 28 2013,20:22) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 29 2013,00:44) Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 28 2013,18:09)Gary, we want to know more about your time as an ordained minister in the Church of Sex.
I only want to know more about your life as a prostitute while living in the psychiatric hospital you were locked up in, for much of your life.
Had its ups and downs.
The hours were good but, oh, the smoked salmon was appalling.
Now your turn....it's rare we get anyone daft enough to enroll as a mail-order man of the cloth. And for such a kinky outfit, too!
It's not MY fault I'm so scientifically sexy that women go crazy all around me when I theorize to them.
When that happens I have to run out the back door of the storefront church then dive into an awaiting getaway car, while my wife holds them back for me:
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by Henry J
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 26 2013,15:03) Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 26 2013,11:38) Quote Oh, and would there be ghosts without electromagnetic force? Is electromagnetic force what holds ghosts together?
Only if they had magnetic personalities while alive.
Henry
gluons, man... it's all about the gluons
Well, maybe in the absence of duck tape.
(I quack me up sometimes! )
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 26 2013,15:03) Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 26 2013,11:38) Quote Oh, and would there be ghosts without electromagnetic force? Is electromagnetic force what holds ghosts together?
Only if they had magnetic personalities while alive.
Henry
gluons, man... it's all about the gluons
Well, maybe in the absence of duck tape.
(I quack me up sometimes! )
Categories: AE Public BB
