|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discontinuing research about ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The paper was now accepted for a peer-review. ... It will be interesting to hear what they say about it.
I agree with RAZD. I already stated in [Msg=120] that they can be easily reduced to two options or even less. They were only preliminary added to P.Al. Have you done this for the paper submitted for review? Personally I think you need to either
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)
I agree with RAZD. I wouldn't know how a colour could be positively or negatively affected. Not everything that can happen, will happen. 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.
I agree with RAZD. I already stated in [Msg=141] that there is a high probability that a first event fits. For example for one appearance there is M12 which doesn't fit with the pattern: 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.
... . I already stated in [Msg=136]: "It is black and white. Next to each other, not separately." ... So every time you see a star field you observe the "person" P.BW?
... There are normally about 25 occurrences until E15 is reached. ... 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:
When you look at the distribution of pattern variation length in number of elements you find
Only 3 episodes out of 76 are longer than 11 events of the purported 15 event string (4%) and they are all 12 events long. The overall average length is only 8.8 events, showing a heavy bias to the shorter variations being counted. 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.
... This was also explained in the paper. Peer-reviewers spend months to review a paper of this size. I can't expect from you to do the same. 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. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi GaryG, and welcome to the fray.
The theory I am here to discuss: quote: 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.
At all biological intelligence levels whatever sensory the system has to work with addresses a memory that works like a random access memory chip used in a computer. It is possible to put the contents of a RAM into a Read Only Memory (ROM) but using a ROM instead of RAM takes away the system's ability to self-learn, it cannot form new memories that are needed to adapt to new environments. ... Ah the old computer analogy. Still observation, still not a theory.
... For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from an eternal conscious loving "spirit" existing at another level our multicellular intelligence level may sense but cannot directly experience. It is possible that one or both of the parents will later lose interest in the partnership, or they may have more offspring than they can possibly take care of, or none at all, but "for better or for worse" for such intelligence anywhere in the universe, there will nonetheless be the love we need and cherish to guide us, forever through generations of time... 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.
Message 322: I'm here to explain the theory. Do you have a question? Yes: what is your theory?
Message 325: That does not explain how intelligence and intelligent cause works. You are using generalizations that oversimplify the origin of species and are unable to explain the origin of life, or intelligence. So yes you only need one sentence, while I need 50 or more just to get started. 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.
Message 326: Darwinian theory is not for explaining how intelligence works, nor is it able to explain the origin of life/intelligence. 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.
There is no "competing theory". Quite right: the theory of evolution has no competition. Certainly not from a pile of words pretending to be a theory.
Message 328: And could you please explain the origin of intelligence, including your operational definition for the phenomenon. 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
... as you are new here, some posting tips: I see you have the [quote]quote function[/quote] down, you can also type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes: quotes are easy also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 Edited by RAZD, : typoby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
After having been linked to this thread I only wanted to let Martin know that I'm making good progress on a theory, So the suspicion that you do not actually have a (scientific) theory is now validated. From your link:
quote: 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:
That's not "academia being polarized by the ID controversy", that's everybody in academia agreeing that ID is rubbish. No controversy, no polarization. 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 ... ? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
And to be clear I must repeat what I said on the previous page: 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. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Many of my points of view are based on evidence. What is your evidence for the origin of life? 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. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024