|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist? | |||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
The paper by Swain and Perkins, and the paper cited by WK by Zernicka-Goetz and Huang seem to me to lead to a more "directed" rather than "determistic" or "equally probable" random response by cells in their decision making. No they don't: please show how they do.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Perkins and Swain conclude that the ubiquitous stocahsticity makes cellular decision making probabilistic. I could be being dense here but stochasticity (lacking in any predictable order or plan) and probability seem a far cry from a conscious decision.
That cells can act with anticipation and can make regulatory decisions based upon enviromental factors. I can't see how one can get from random probabilities to conscious decision: it in no way follows.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Well, you can't very well have an unconscious decision, can you?
Either some intentional choice is made or there is no decision making process taking place. That would be my position: there is no decision being made; simply inevitable, mechanical processess. No need for decisions, intelligence or intentional activity. Do I win 5 pounds? Abe:
it reminds me saying that everythink has a rudimentary "intelligence"! Do you realise that? Taq is pointing this out to show how stupid the idea is, not to lend support the idea that everything is intelligent, obviously. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
It is your vague approach to the word intelligence that is causing others to take your meaning in various ways.
You're rubbish at communication: that is the problem.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
In smmation: I was right about how this thread would turn out.
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. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024