Discontinuing research about ID

It will be interesting to hear what they say about it. Have you done this for the paper submitted for review? Personally I think you need to either

1. Reduce all elements to single aspects or
2. record which aspect of an element is observed (ie -- P.Al{spaceship}

and list all the observed element aspects for each event, not just the initial observation that triggers the event. Doing this would help distinguish which event starts the "pattern" for each episode (ie -- what distinguishes E3 from E1 as the beginning) Segregating the aspects out and recording them instead of the element lumping would avoid this problem. You could have colors as "mark" elements rather than "person" elements. To properly evaluate the probabilities we need to compare the number of aspects that give a positive fit to the number of aspects that give a negative fit. M12 has only one aspect: temporary interruption (which is subject to subjective interpretation -- is this a scene shift ?) and relatively rare if we can trust your data record showing only It only appears 4 times in the whole (documented) data set (possibly to make events 12 to 15 get counted when they otherwise would fail,?) ... in four episodes out of 76. So every time you see a star field you observe the "person" P.BW? The "data" you provided shows otherwise ... after the first season you only recorded the initial elements, and most of the string of events were the shorter variations per Message 308: The average distribution from the "pattern" variations is 10.5 events per episode and 17 episodes are longer while 59 are shorter. I haven't gone through season 1 to see if any of the episodes are documented for 25 or more elements, but this certainly is not an average shown by the data. This is another problem with the way the data was recorded. Agreed: It is your duty to provide these explanations rather than be continually referring back to your paper -- unless you list page and paragraph, in which case you could just quote ...This forum isn't a peer review process, it is a comment exchange and debate, and it is against forum rules to debate by referring to a document.Without more complete data (ie -- all the observed aspects in chronological order, without division into elements nor set into events) it is not possible to review further without wasting a lot of time.Enjoy

Hi GaryG, and welcome to the fray. Sorry, I had trouble discerning what your theory is clearly. It seems to me that you are essentially stating that atoms have an intrinsic intelligence that guides how molecules are formed, molecules have an intrinsic intelligence that guides how they combine into larger structures (DNA/RNA making cells), that these larger structures (organisms) have an intrinsic intelligence guiding behavior and formation of more complex organisms, and this guides behavior and eventually information processing.But that is your observation, not a theory. Ah the old computer analogy. Still observation, still not a theory. And still observation, and still not a theory.For it to be a (scientific) theory it needs to start with a hypothesis that makes predictions and those predictions are tested to see if the hypothesis is valid or invalid. Yes: what is your theory? In other words you cannot state your theory simply. I looked at your "50 words or more" and all I see is wishful thinking, not a scientific hypothesis and certainly not a theory.Curiously I can both state the theory of evolution simply and then show how it explains intelligence. I don't need to write a novel before getting to the theory. Actually Evolutionary theory does quite well at explaining the origin of intelligence and it's development. How it works is a function of it's existence. And the science of abiogenesis explains the origins of life. Quite right: the theory of evolution has no competition. Certainly not from a pile of words pretending to be a theory. Lets start with the operational definition: intelligence at it's most basic is the means of interpreting sensations to enable an organism to survive and reproduce.Thus, it is relatively obvious that intelligence is an emergent property of developing senses -- sight, smell, touch, taste, hearing -- as each of these senses emerge in organisms, to enable it to increase survival and reproduction. The senses do not develop at the same time but each can become more complex over time by evolution as they enable increased survival and reproduction. Consider that different types of eyes have developed and that snakes can perceive heat while bats can echo-locate, and thus the senses than an organism has are dependent on their evolutionary history rather than any intrinsic design.There is evidence that supports this.What is your theory and what is your supporting evidence?Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : typo

So the suspicion that you do not actually have a (scientific) theory is now validated.From your link:

quote:

---

Quote (JohnW @ June 09 2015,18:03)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 09 2015,15:50)

That is perhaps why academia is so polarized by the ID controversy...

​

Citation needed.

​

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Curiously what the wiki link says is that ID is not considered science because it hasn't done science. Or as N.Wells Posted: June 09 2015,18:53 on the other forum said: Just as you have so far failed to present a theory here, and failed to show how your concept even became an hypothesis that was, or could be, tested (one of those nasty prerequisites for doing science).Instead of whining about being rejected for not doing science, perhaps you could consider doing science ... ?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clrty

And to be clear, this is how science is done: And this: is NOT science, because it is not testable\falsifiable concept (in the same way that "god" is not a testable\falsifiable concept). Nor is the version you posted here in Message 332.And this is typical of why these IDological concepts are not accepted by actual scientists: it just isn't science. You think you've hit a home run but you haven't even gotten to first base - a testable hypothesis. Nor done any work to test it.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Curiously, my (deist) .belief is that the universe is\was designed to produce life, and earth just happens to be one of the lucky locations where that came to be.My evidence is listed in:
Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I)
and Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II)One of the questions for anyone looking into the origin of life is what is the definition of life (when do you know life has begun)? My definition is that life is something that can evolve, where the process of evolution (changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in an iterative feedback response to the different ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats) begins.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .