Summations Only

Thread copied here from the Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hi IamJoseph,I'm a participant in this thread, not a moderator, but given what has taken place over at the My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism) thread I feel urgent action is required so as to prevent you from doing to this thread what you did to that one. I'm removing your posting permissions in this thread's forum, the Is It Science? forum.

Given that I haven't participated as Percy in over two days and nearly a hundred posts, I'm going to step in as moderator.I don't think meaningful progress can be made until there is agreement on the definition of "intelligence", but it is Zi Ko's definition that is in play, not other people's. If you take issue with any definition of intelligence then it must be his and not anyone else's.

Hi Zi Ko,I had assumed that you would be refining your definition of intelligence from Message 1, but if you're instead expanding it to be a universal property that something possesses simply by reason of existence then I do not think this a worthwhile topic of discussion. This exchange has me concerned: If by this you mean that everything that exists has intelligence, as others have begun to suspect, then I will immediately begin the thread closure process and ask participants to submit summaries.

Rather than beginning the thread closure process, I think it might be worthwhile to bless as the official topic what people are already discussing. Instead of discussing whether nature has innate intelligence this thread should discuss the validity of Zi Ko's definition of intelligence. In Zi Ko's definition, everything has intelligence, and he clearly doesn't understand why this isn't a useful definition.

Shadow, please, that's enough quoting other people as your only argument. The Internet's a big place. You will always be able to find someone to quote. Here at this discussion board you're expected to make your own arguments. If you want to promote Swain's views that's fine, but you'll have to do it using your own words, not his, and you'll have to do it at this website, not by sending people to Swain's website. Use other websites only as supporting references.I'm a participant in this thread, not a moderator, but I'm going to act as moderator in your case because you're exhibiting the precise same behavior I cautioned you about in other threads.

Hi Shadow,This is rule 5 from the Forum Guidelines:

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

When people don't make arguments in their own words it's almost always because they don't understand the subject, and you have conceded on several occasions that you don't understand the science. If argument-via-quote is effective for you in a legal brief then I'm happy for you, but this is not a legal brief. This is a discussion.Look at it this way. You've written your brief to the Supreme Court, you've made your oral arguments, and now the justices are asking you questions. You cannot tell the justices to go look something up.You can't do it here, either.You're way over quota on the quotes. You're welcome to argue anyone's views you like, but from now on no more quotes, just presentations and explanations of those views in your own words.Please, no replies to this message in this thread.

Unless there's a bug, you should have received an alert that read something like this: So it's too early for summations. When the thread enters summation mode you'll get this alert: AbE: If you click on the "Thread Details" link at the top you'll see summation mode information in the box on the right hand side.Edited by Admin, : AbE.

I'm posting a single summation, and I'll do it as Admin.I will not promote any more threads that redefine common words.
I will not promote any more threads that redefine common words.
I will not promote any more threads that redefine common words.
...