Summations Only

Hi Zi Ko,I don't think the rest of the intelligent design world would agree with you that the "intelligent" part of "intelligent design" refers to nature just following its laws. You can call what nature does "intelligent", or you can call what a cell does "intelligent", but its just a relabeling, a semantic game, a rose by any other name. And yet when we look inside a cell all we find is matter and energy obeying the laws of nature. We do not find anything like the extravagant claims of your quote. Instead of finding that "Cells can see" we find cells interacting with their environment. Instead of finding cells that "measure space and time" we find cells carrying out the natural processes of cells and, if they're the right type, moving about within their environment. Instead of finding cells that "derive abstract data from physical signals" we find cells with signaling systems based upon complex chemistry.What you're doing is not a case of intelligent design research finding evidence of intelligence. You're just throwing up your hands at the complete lack of evidence of actual intelligence by relabeling what we already know about nature as "innate intelligence."You might want to look into Spinozan philosophy. Spinoza equated God with nature, which is the direction you seem to be leaning.--Percy

That's how you're going to convince others of your point of view, asking them, "Why not?" Are you serious? That's like asking, if a bird can fly, why not a dog? If cells can engage in horizontal gene transfer (e.g., bacterial conjugation), why can't plants and animals? If a human being can design an airplane, why not a chipmunk?Is that how you became convinced that cells are intelligent? Someone asked you, "Why not?"If you want to call a cell intelligent that's your business, but you do not appear to have any reason for doing so, it isn't what other intelligent design proponents are advocating, and you appear to just be playing semantic games.--Percy

Your example is fine. Is this how you expect to convince people, asking "Why not?" Is that how you became convinced, someone asked you, "Why not?" You for some reason think rhetorical statements like this are persuasive? Of anything?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Your OP contains baseless claims that cells can "see" and "measure". There's no evidence of this, and even you are embedding them in quotes. You're just labeling cells intelligent without any justification. Your Shapiro and McClintock quotes are describing qualities to cells using grandiose terms that don't really apply. For example, we can label complex chemical cellular reactions to the environment as "information processing", but that doesn't make a cell intelligent in way we normally use the term, and it doesn't provide any support for claims of nature's "innate intelligence."--Percy

This requires some translation. I think you're asking the rhetorical question, "What's wrong with me believing everything has intelligence as I defined it?"I don't see anything wrong with you believing whatever you want to believe as long as it doesn't bring harm to others. If all you wanted to do was let us know what you believe then you didn't need an entire thread to do that, but presumably you started this thread to convince other people, and for that you need evidence, of which you appear to have none. I, too, believe intelligence isn't limited solely to humans, but I don't define intelligence the way you do (neither do GDR, Straggler and 1.61803, nor likely anyone else), plus I have evidence for what I believe. You say you are satisfied, but you've produced no evidence, and you haven't convinced anyone of anything. You haven't even put forward anything anyone believes makes sense.--Percy

Since you're using a made-up definition of intelligence while I'm using the standard definition, what difference does it make which non-humans I think are intelligent? Incredibly, you expressed encouragement that Straggler and 1.6 agreed with you that it isn't only humans that can display intelligence when you're not even using the same definition. I only mentioned my position to indicate that I share their definition of intelligence and their position that it isn't only humans that can display intelligence.You're using a definition of intelligence that makes no sense, and you're claiming agreement by people who don't share your definition of intelligence. We're trying to discuss nature's innate intelligence with you, but it looks like we're going to spend most of our time trying to explain why nothing about your position makes any sense.--Percy

Hi Zi Ko,You cannot reason people into a position where reason played no role when it somehow persuaded you.So, you know, if you're not going to post any evidence or arguments for your position, if you're just going to post arguments from authority, if you're just going to post one sentence messages, if you're not even going to bother with reason, spelling, grammar, punctuation or even spacing, maybe you could, oh, I don't know, stop posting?--Percy

Look, Zi Ko, could you at least say something that makes sense? You claim there are too many definitions of the word intelligence, yet you think the solution is to make up yet another?Do you know how many definitions of "run" there are at Answers.com? 41.Do you know how many definitions of "intelligence" there are at Answers.com? 8.Do you know how many are relevant to this discussion? 2 or 3.Too many definitions? Sheesh!Zi Ko, are you going to make an effort here, or are you going to continue barely being able to get through a sentence without making silly errors. It's no wonder you creationists never participate in the same thread, you've all got your own individual brand of stupid.--Percy

Hi Zi Ko,I hesitate to try explaining anything to you because you seem to ignore most of what people say. I suggest you begin meaningfully engaging with what people are telling you. The defense of a new hypothesis doesn't consist of, "It's new." The defense consists of, first of all, proposing a hypothesis that makes sense. Replying to those who note the non-sensical nature of your hypothesis with "It's new" is not a valid rebuttal. Replying to those who note the lack of evidence with "It's new" is not a valid rebuttal. Ignoring everything people are explaining to you with "It's new" is not a valid rebuttal - it's not even honest discussion. Claiming that people who clearly disagree with you are in agreement with you calls your very sanity into question. You're not discussing, you're employing delaying tactics to do everything to prevent a meaningful examination of your ideas.One of the outstanding qualities of science is that it changes in light of improved insights or new evidence. You've been provided a number of insights and a great deal of evidence of which you were previously unaware. It's time to begin incorporating it into your thinking instead of stonewalling. You can begin by explaining how a definition of intelligence that ascribes that property to everything everywhere makes sense, or you can modify your definition. "It's new" is not an option.So please stop posting vapid responses off the top of your head. Take your time and come up with responses that are not empty of substance.--Percy

You're equating Shadow's quote describing cellular activity in terms of information processing as equivalent to your definition of intelligence as "everything is intelligent"? Really? You go off for three days and this is the best you can come up with, more nonsense?If you want to start over with Shadow's quote as your definition of intelligence then I think it would be fine with everyone here, and then we can discuss whether this form of intelligence is innate within nature.--Percy

Wow, an argument from anonymous authority. Kudos for improving on one of the more popular fallacies.If there are true authorities out there who believe as you do that everything is intelligent then study up on how they support their position, bring those arguments here to this thread, win the debate handily, and be carried off into the sunset on the throngs of a cheering crowd.Or perhaps you would prefer to switch to Swain's description of cellular processes in terms of information processing as your definition of intelligence?Of course, it wouldn't change anything. Whether the position is that everything is intelligent or cells are intelligent, it's just a relabeling of what nature does as intelligent. Since what nature does is, by definition, innate to nature, then by your definition of intelligent nature's innate intelligence does indeed exist. Who'd a thought?Or I could just define all cars as Lamborghinis, and what do you know, I own a Lamborghini!But I'm sure all the other participants in this thread would prefer that you offer a definition of intelligent that isn't specious or ridiculous. I don't know why it isn't clear to you that you're just playing semantic games. Simply declaring that everything in nature is intelligent by definition makes no more sense than declaring all cars to be Lamborghinis.--Percy

And so it goes. You explain the correct information to the creationist, which he misunderstands. You explain the misunderstanding, but he misunderstands that, too. You use an analogy, he misunderstands the analogy. You can't actually discuss anything with the creationist because interpretation of simple English seems to be at the root of the problem.So I don't hold out much hope that this will help, but my analogy concerned the pointlessness of simply declaring words to be defined whichever way you want them defined. The analogy was about the fallacious nature of your chosen approach and had nothing to do with intelligence. I don't know why you're waiting because the answer was in the very message you're responding to. Allow me to quote myself from Message 206: Or don't you understand that, either?--Percy

Zi Ko, what, are you so bored you're picking out random messages from last week to reply to? Or are you just catching up on your unreplied-to messages? Did you know there's an "Acknowledge this reply" link at the bottom of each message?Whatever it is, please stop making a hash out of the thread. You're disrupting the natural course of the discussion.--Percy

The link actually says "You have not yet responded." If you click on it it becomes "You have acknowledged this reply." There's no need to go through your old unreplied-to messages posting one line responses.--Percy

Hi Zi Ko,This is from your website (http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com/), Larni also quoted it: You call the innate intelligence of nature an assumption. You've apparently known all along precisely what we've been telling you since the beginning of this thread: you're making an assumption, an unwarranted one at that.--Percy