Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist?
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 286 of 303 (640109)
11-07-2011 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Percy
11-07-2011 11:00 AM


Silver foxes
For a bit more background on this there is an open access article on these foxes by Trut et al. (2009).
They conclude ...
We proceeded on the assumption that regulatory changes in gene activity may generate the remarkable level of diversity and its similar patterns among domestic animals. These regulatory changes were presumably caused by selection animals for specific behavior, tameability as a marker of tolerance and successful adaptation to the human social environment. The experimental model of domestication, as a kind of forced evolution, was developed by systematically applying selection for tameability on silver foxes.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Percy, posted 11-07-2011 11:00 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 287 of 303 (640126)
11-07-2011 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by zi ko
11-07-2011 7:12 AM


Re: innate intelligence
No, you view the world through a lense of childish wonder that imagines the most amazing things being true.
But everyone can imagine loads amazing of things. I can imagine EM fields being affected by intentional thought.
But.
You need to give a reason (not your ridiculous website, please) for anyone one to believe what you assert.
You have not done this. That is why nobody takes you or your ideas seriously.
Does this surprise you?
Edited by Larni, : Oh, you know.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by zi ko, posted 11-07-2011 7:12 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by zi ko, posted 11-07-2011 1:00 PM Larni has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 288 of 303 (640133)
11-07-2011 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Larni
11-07-2011 12:27 PM


Re: innate intelligence
You need to give a reason (not your ridiculous website, please) for anyone one to believe what you assert.
You have not done this. That is why nobody takes you or your ideas seriously.
Does this surprise you?
No. I expected it.
But try to understand this. A man practically living alone with only his PC, poor knowledge of english languadge, no previous studies on the matter, not any kind of help or guidance, trying to formulate a comprehensive new theory of evolution , anew paradigm of it. It is really insane. BUT I HAD TO GET IT KNOWN. I want to believe it will be proved, at least in some aspects, right. Read the work about domestication by Trut et all suggested by W.K in message 286.you will see there where biology and new knowledge leeds to, very near to what i am saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Larni, posted 11-07-2011 12:27 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Percy, posted 11-07-2011 3:49 PM zi ko has replied
 Message 290 by Larni, posted 11-08-2011 6:00 AM zi ko has replied
 Message 291 by Taq, posted 11-08-2011 12:43 PM zi ko has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 289 of 303 (640146)
11-07-2011 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by zi ko
11-07-2011 1:00 PM


Re: innate intelligence
zi ko writes:
A man practically living alone with only his PC, poor knowledge of english languadge, no previous studies on the matter, not any kind of help or guidance, trying to formulate a comprehensive new theory of evolution , anew paradigm of it. It is really insane.
Yes, it is insane. And a waste of time, too. This is yet more evidence that lack of competence highly correlates with inflated estimations of said competence. All you've done is employed lack of comprehension as a debate tool.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by zi ko, posted 11-07-2011 1:00 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by zi ko, posted 11-09-2011 5:44 AM Percy has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 290 of 303 (640269)
11-08-2011 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by zi ko
11-07-2011 1:00 PM


Re: innate intelligence
A man practically living alone with only his PC, poor knowledge of english languadge, no previous studies on the matter, not any kind of help or guidance, trying to formulate a comprehensive new theory of evolution , anew paradigm of it. It is really insane. BUT I HAD TO GET IT KNOWN.
If you really cared about this issue you do go to university, study a biology honours degree, do a masters to get some research skills and then do some research.
What point to write on a debate site when you cannot support your points with evidence or reasond arguement?
That's part of the site's rules!
Read the work about domestication by Trut et all suggested by W.K in message 286.you will see there where biology and new knowledge leeds to, very near to what i am saying.
It is nowhere near what you are saying: you say there is intelligence/empathy (which don't mean what the words actually but your own definition of those words) behind evolution.
The paper says that it takes about 20 year to domesticate foxes.
I'm sorry to be harsh but you lack the expertise in the correct field to be debating this. Everything you say has the properties of fantasy. There is no corroberating evidence but you cling to it like a drowning man.
I used to have some pretty wacky ideas about how the world worked. I used to think that time was expanding. But this I asked some questions and let go of that idea because I could not support it and others provided evidences to debunk my ideas.
Have you ever watched a program called 'Dragons Den'? People tout their business ideas to a bunch of investors in the hope of getting some start up cash.
Many times their ideas are so poor that the investors say "your idea is going nowhere, don't waste your time with it".
Your idea is going nowhere, don't waste your time with it.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by zi ko, posted 11-07-2011 1:00 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by zi ko, posted 11-09-2011 6:19 AM Larni has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 291 of 303 (640309)
11-08-2011 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by zi ko
11-07-2011 1:00 PM


Re: innate intelligence
But try to understand this. A man practically living alone with only his PC, poor knowledge of english languadge, no previous studies on the matter, not any kind of help or guidance, trying to formulate a comprehensive new theory of evolution , anew paradigm of it. It is really insane. BUT I HAD TO GET IT KNOWN.
What you have just admitted is that you are a crackpot. A somewhat endearing crackpot, but a crackpot nonetheless.
What I would suggest is that you learn about Darwin's life history. He didn't write Origins on a whim. He spent years studying as a naturalist before he even felt comfortable writing that book. If it were not for Alfred Russel Wallace he probably would have waited another few decades before publishing. The difference between you (the crackpot) and a scientist is that scientists work hard to support their ideas before publishing them.
I want to believe it will be proved, at least in some aspects, right.
This belief seems to be very weak. This belief does not even compel you to construct a testable model. You don't even feel it necessary to learn the fundamentals of genetics and molecular biology. If this belief does not even compel you to put forth a minimum amount of effort to show that it has promise, why should other scientists feel compelled to check it out?
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by zi ko, posted 11-07-2011 1:00 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by zi ko, posted 11-09-2011 6:03 AM Taq has not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 292 of 303 (640391)
11-09-2011 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Percy
11-07-2011 3:49 PM


Re: innate intelligence
And a waste of time, too. This is yet more evidence that lack of competence highly correlates with inflated estimations of said competence.
It was not a waste of time. All thread's comments were very usefull to me to form an idea of what is going on, what the general climate is, and to test some of my ideas and also to change some of them. So i really i am very gratefull to all participants. My revised form of my hypothesis can be found on http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com. About my competence don't hurry to make a verdict.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Percy, posted 11-07-2011 3:49 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Percy, posted 11-09-2011 7:01 AM zi ko has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 293 of 303 (640392)
11-09-2011 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Taq
11-08-2011 12:43 PM


Re: innate intelligence. I t is not necessary.
I think you are right in general. But i am not a scientist in the field. I have no the means to support for my ideas or even discuss about them,besides a forum like this, where changing ideas is so handicapted because of preconcieved beliefs. So the best thing i can do is to put the questions and expect the real scientists will give the anwers. I hope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Taq, posted 11-08-2011 12:43 PM Taq has not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 294 of 303 (640394)
11-09-2011 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Larni
11-08-2011 6:00 AM


Re: innate intelligence. It is not necessary.
you say there is intelligence/empathy (which don't mean what the words actually but your own definition of those words) behind evolution.
The issue of intelligence is not essential to my hypothesis. It can work without it. (See my revised edition of http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com). The empathic issue could become my falsification area. It is a question i put to the scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Larni, posted 11-08-2011 6:00 AM Larni has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 295 of 303 (640397)
11-09-2011 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by zi ko
11-09-2011 5:44 AM


Re: innate intelligence
Science is not advanced by someone who begins by saying, "I don't understand the science," nor by making up new word definitions. Your efforts are forever doomed because you are driven by a need to find support for what you want to believe instead of by what the evidence tells you.
Until you make learning as much as you can about the science your highest goal you'll continue to just entertain your fantasies while wasting our time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by zi ko, posted 11-09-2011 5:44 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by zi ko, posted 11-09-2011 10:06 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 296 of 303 (640414)
11-09-2011 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Percy
11-09-2011 7:01 AM


Re: innate intelligence
Also science does not advances by someone who feels safe under the knowledge of others and not being able to offer or discuss a single new idea, or even worse he is afraid of any such idea.
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Percy, posted 11-09-2011 7:01 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Larni, posted 11-09-2011 10:16 AM zi ko has not replied
 Message 299 by 1.61803, posted 11-09-2011 10:25 AM zi ko has not replied
 Message 300 by Taq, posted 11-09-2011 6:26 PM zi ko has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 297 of 303 (640415)
11-09-2011 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by zi ko
11-09-2011 10:06 AM


Re: innate intelligence
Science advances by scientist who do research.
You are neither and your contribution to science is zero.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by zi ko, posted 11-09-2011 10:06 AM zi ko has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 298 of 303 (640416)
11-09-2011 10:24 AM


Summation
zi ko writes:
...no previous studies on the matter, not any kind of help or guidance, trying to formulate a comprehensive new theory of evolution , anew paradigm of it. It is really insane. BUT I HAD TO GET IT KNOWN. I want to believe it will be proved, at least in some aspects, right.
I consider this to be a honest confession of the invalidity of the Innate Intelligence hypothesis.
I cannot say anything that could undermine the claim of legitimacy more than zi ko's own comments.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 299 of 303 (640417)
11-09-2011 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by zi ko
11-09-2011 10:06 AM


Re: innate intelligence
To be intellectually brave means one must accept the fact that sometimes our questions lead to unsavory answers. To dismiss previous study based on good science and replace it with contradicting, unfounded speculation to prop up some anthropomorphic ideas on innate intelligence is nonsensical at the least.
Science does not fear the truth, but rather seeks it out. imo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by zi ko, posted 11-09-2011 10:06 AM zi ko has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 300 of 303 (640451)
11-09-2011 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by zi ko
11-09-2011 10:06 AM


Re: innate intelligence
Also science does not advances by someone who feels safe under the knowledge of others and not being able to offer or discuss a single new idea, or even worse he is afraid of any such idea.
The falsification of a long standing theory is one of the most exciting things I can think of. You are wrong. We are not protecting a tightly held belief. We are protecting reason and logic, something which you cast aside on a regular basis. We would absolutely love it if you could actually challenge modern theories with something that resembles evidence, reason, and logic. Sadly, you lack all three.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by zi ko, posted 11-09-2011 10:06 AM zi ko has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024