|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
Apologies in advance, but.
I told you so.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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? Percy, you know i am proposing a new hypothesis about evolution. Is it strange to you that i have no evidence in relation to this hypothesis? Otherwise it wouldn't be just a hypothesis, but a theory. In any case i have stated from the beggining that i had not evidences.As i am proposing an entirely new idea, it is natural to need new definitions about critical terms as intelligence. What is it strange about it? I can not discuss inteligently with somebody calling my theses and arguments silly ect. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
No.
What you are doing is the equivalent of throwing shit at a wall and hoping some of it will stick. And what do you know, the walls here may as well be made of Teflon.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meddle Member (Idle past 1291 days) Posts: 179 From: Scotland Joined:
|
Is it strange to you that i have no evidence in relation to this hypothesis? Otherwise it wouldn't be just a hypothesis, but a theory. In any case i have stated from the beggining that i had not evidences. Even a hypothesis has evidence, since a hypothesis is basically an explanation of a specific observation or fact. Such observations or facts are examples of evidence. An hypothesis progresses to being a theory if it is confronted by new facts and observations and the explanation still holds true.For example, Darwin did not conjure up the theory of evolution by natural selection and then went looking for the evidence on the Galapagos. He went there, noted the diversity in Tortoise shells and differences in Galapagos and mainland mockingbirds, then he proceeded to develop a hypothesis to explain these facts. So what specific examples do you have and how does your 'hypothesis' explain them? Edited by Malcolm, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I t is not me that i say that a new definition is needed . . . Yes it is. This is what you said in the opening post: "Intelligence: I don’t give it the original meaning of the word (namely, to choose between contingent alternatives). " You are redefining intelligence. This tells me that what you describe as intelligence is nothing of the kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
I wanted to stress that my belief was a radical one that needs at least attention. After parsing your claims, no it doesn't need attention. Anything and everything can be considered intelligent as you define it. Therefore, it is meaningless. What is quite apparent is that you already have a conclusion, but nothing to back it up. This causes you to be very inconsistent, using ad hoc rationalization to cover the holes in your argument. Such an argument does not deserve attention.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Percy, you know i am proposing a new hypothesis about evolution. You have not presented an hypothesis. You have presented a belief. When you understand the difference between the two you will understand the mistakes you have made in this thread.
Is it strange to you that i have no evidence in relation to this hypothesis? The problem is that you have no way of testing the hypothesis. Hypotheses need to be testable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2954 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Jar writes:
Utter crap.No it does not take information/memory/intelligence to initiate it. And your example of pulling a hand away from hot surface is NOT similar. The plant cannot decide to turn away from the sun. There is no "learned response". There is no "memory" involved. There is no "information" in any sense that might be even vaguely related to intelligence. The plant turning to face the sun is simple mechanics with NO decisions involved. Here is the web cite of Peter Swain. He seem to disagree with you and it appears Ziko's OP is very close to this scientists research in re cells and decision making.
Peter Swain writes:
The Swain lab CENTRE for SYSTEMS BIOLOGY at EDINBURGH University of Edinburgh We study how cells make decisions. Gathering and processing information is fundamental to life. In all cells, this ability is conferred by biochemical networks, collections of genes and proteins that interact with each other and the extracellular environment. Information is detected by proteins at the cell membrane, processed by biochemical networks in the cytosol and nucleus, and then used to decide an appropriate cellular response. Such cellular decision-making is at the core of synthetic biology and its failure causes disease: whether it is a hijacking of the signalling network by a viral invader, the uncontrolled growth of cancer, or mistimings in the contractions of individual heart cells. Our work is supported by the Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance and the BBSRC. LATEST: A Bayesian analysis for FRET experiments. 26015 visits since 6 Dec 2008. Edited by shadow71, : Decided not to edit
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sorry but again that does not seem to support anything approaching "intelligence".
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Here is the web cite of Peter Swain. He seem to disagree with you and it appears Ziko's OP is very close to this scientists research in re cells and decision making. This isn't a suggested reading forum. This is a discussion forum. This means you need to make your own arguments. It is ok to cite work done by others, but you need to summarize their findings in your own words and be willing to defend those arguments with your own words. Thus far, you don't seem willing to do this. Of course, I am not an admin so take this as a suggestion from a fellow poster.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
First of all that is web site not cite. You might want to learn how to use these two words properly.
Second of all any chance you might provide a link or do we have to do the research ourselves?Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Sorry but again that does not seem to support anything approaching "intelligence".
It is exactly what my so defined intelligence is. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
zi ko writes: It is exactly what my so defined intelligence is. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2954 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Theodoric writes:
First of all that is web site not cite. You might want to learn how to use these two words properly.Second of all any chance you might provide a link or do we have to do the research ourselves? I know the difference just a typo.The Swain Laboratory
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024