Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author of the new Intelligent Design <id> and the dis

[danshawen]

No. It's instinctive, not intelligence.

What exactly makes it "instinctive"? What makes failing to breathe, or to drink or to eat, or to mate "instinctive", as opposed to something more obviously intelligent like avoiding a predator about to eat you? "Instinctive" is the same as "intelligence" when you get right down to it. In either case, the lack of action on the part of something intelligent means survival is lost. This is how evolution works. No guiding intelligence is really necessary to make it work that way; it's really a lack of intelligence that is the undoing of those individuals who, for whatever reason, fail to survive. Nature is relentless and ruthless about this, and doesn't care what aspect of cognitive intelligence failed the unfortunate individuals who were not able to anticipate what factor of their environment caused their early demise. Only the ones who succeed in anticipating danger (or opportunities) and act on those "instincts" to survive will make it. Groups of cooperating intelligent animals can also improve their chances of survival by deploying some members of the group as foragers and others as scouts for spotting predators or game. Humans and dogs co-evolved together because one had a keen olfactory system that could be deployed in various ways, and the other could use weapons to bring down larger game, thus allowing them to hunt together more effectively than either could otherwise manage alone.

Do you see no "pattern" to the deployment of intelligence here?

 

[quantum_wave]

But are you wiling to defend your position that your version of intelligence is far superior than mine? Experiments can settle our differences in science. I will make experiment, you will make yours..but the intelligence must be universal since that is what I've discovered. But on that debate, you must show that your intelligence is universal and part of reality...or anything you wanna do to show that your knowledge of intelligence is better than mine...

Are you willing?

Of course, I always predict that I will always win since my new discovered intelligence is universal and realistic and I can use, oh my goodness, many experiments that show the universal intelligence.

Use ToE's 160 years of science and see if ToE's has power enough to smash my new discoveries..or ask help to the best scientists (all of them combined) to smash me..and let us see who has science and reality...

You have already stated that your universal intelligence, AI aka God, has always existed, and I have stated instead, that in my view, the universe has always existed, without the added need for a universal intelligence. To be clear, I cannot falsify your claim, but to date I know of no irrefutable evidence of it. Further, I suggest that anything that seems Supernatural, has natural causes that we don't yet understand. Can you take up the challenge to prove your case, or falsify mine? Do so in the next post, because the community isn't interested in either case, given that there haven't been any member comments at all to my posts, and there hasn't been any support for your case either. We are boring, lol, and I am satisfied that neither of us will prove our case.

 

[Dywyddyr]

But we all know that so that X could exist, in the topic of origin, intelligence is always needed.

If you start with an unsupported assumption you probably end up with an incorrect conclusion.

thus, we can say with certainty that it is intelligence that originated the whole existence.

Or even, as in this case, a completely wild conclusion.

Thus, IA exists.

This is nothing but a circular argument. If you start by assuming IA exists then, surprisingly, your conclusion will also end with with IA as a necessity.

Thus, the conclusion that the earth is young is logical and scientific and close to reality than old earth!

There is NO valid logic that arrives at this conclusion.

 

[James R]

MrID:

But we all know that so that X could exist, in the topic of origin, intelligence is always needed..

How do we all know that?

Is intelligence needed to form a waterfall? How about a cloud?

Thus, the conclusion that the earth is young is logical and scientific and close to reality than old earth!

Please tell me what evidence you use to determine the age of the Earth and what age you arrive at using your analysis using intelligence. That is, explain how your theory determines the age of the Earth.

Use ToE's 160 years of science and see if ToE's has power enough to smash my new discoveries..

What new discoveries? Please list a few.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

MrID:


How do we all know that?

Is intelligence needed to form a waterfall? How about a cloud?


Please tell me what evidence you use to determine the age of the Earth and what age you arrive at using your analysis using intelligence. That is, explain how your theory determines the age of the Earth.


What new discoveries? Please list a few.

First, I really don't know the age of the earth since I did not even touch this topic since it is beyond my monetary power to make experiment. But intelligence predicts that the age of earth is probably young since intelligence has been used in the origination of existence.

Second, here are my new discoveries..

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

If you start with an unsupported assumption you probably end up with an incorrect conclusion.


Or even, as in this case, a completely wild conclusion.


This is nothing but a circular argument. If you start by assuming IA exists then, surprisingly, your conclusion will also end with with IA as a necessity.


There is NO valid logic that arrives at this conclusion.

I did not start that assumption. I discovered the real intelligence and intelligence is being used for existence or any X to exist.

Intelligence can exist X. Failure or non-intelligence cannot.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

You have already stated that your universal intelligence, AI aka God, has always existed, and I have stated instead, that in my view, the universe has always existed, without the added need for a universal intelligence. To be clear, I cannot falsify your claim, but to date I know of no irrefutable evidence of it. Further, I suggest that anything that seems Supernatural, has natural causes that we don't yet understand. Can you take up the challenge to prove your case, or falsify mine? Do so in the next post, because the community isn't interested in either case, given that there haven't been any member comments at all to my posts, and there hasn't been any support for your case either. We are boring, lol, and I am satisfied that neither of us will prove our case.

You are in error.

I did not say that the universal intelligence is IA aka God. I said that so that X could exist in the entire existence or cosmos or universe or any X for the topic of origin, intelligence is being used. And this principle of using intelligence is universal, thus, I called it universal intelligence.

Intelligence too predicts that if we could detect X, then, we can detect intelligence, thus, intelligence also predicts that behind intelligence is IA.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I did not start that assumption.

Really?
Then you obviously left quite a lot out when you made that post.

I discovered the real intelligence and intelligence is being used for existence or any X to exist.

Please show precisely how you came to this "discovery" (I ask because, so far, all you've done is make claims).

Intelligence can exist X. Failure or non-intelligence cannot.

To be perfectly frank your posts are a superb illustration that the final sentence is incorrect.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I ask because YOU made a specific claim.
Please substantiate this claim, answer those questions.


What makes you think ANY maths was involved in the origin of any of those?
Maths is how we "describe" reality, not how reality describes itself.

Yes, I agreed that math is the language of science and physics and I said that since reality is a certain phenomenon, then, real science must have real math but with certainty since reality is certain. But you said that there is no certainty in science, thus, your science is either wrong or it is a religion.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Really?
Then you obviously left quite a lot out when you made that post.


Please show precisely how you came to this "discovery" (I ask because, so far, all you've done is make claims).


To be perfectly frank your posts are a superb illustration that the final sentence is incorrect.

I discovered through a series of questions:

How any X could exist? What principle/s behind it?

If I want PC to exist, what should I do? What principle should I use?

Then, I discovered that real intelligence is being used..

Any question?

 

[James R]

But intelligence predicts that the age of earth is probably young since intelligence has been used in the origination of existence.

I don't understand why intelligence means the Earth is young. Please explain. Also, what do you mean by "young" here? 6000 years old?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

No. It's instinctive, not intelligence.

CORRECT!!!

Thank you.

Now, let use simple math for that:

naturen = instinct = problem/solution (or one problem has one solution. I called it symmetrical phenomenon)

Thus, intellen is = problem/solution + solution + solution...(or one problem has three solutions. I called it asymmetrical phenomenon)

NOW, we have already a dividing line between naturen to intellen. I called it the Universal Boundary Line, UBL.

And we need to find the limit of intelligence..

That is my discovery, so simple and yet so profound!

And if you apply that to Biology? You will surely wiggle your head and said, "Oh, Darwin, you've got a mistake!"

 

[James R]

I discovered through a series of questions:

How any X could exist? What principle/s behind it?

If I want PC to exist, what should I do? What principle should I use?

Then, I discovered that real intelligence is being used..

Any question?

Yes - the one I asked just above.

If I want a cloud to exist, what should I do? What principle should I use? Does it need the real intelligence?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

What exactly makes it "instinctive"? What makes failing to breathe, or to drink or to eat, or to mate "instinctive", as opposed to something more obviously intelligent like avoiding a predator about to eat you? "Instinctive" is the same as "intelligence" when you get right down to it. In either case, the lack of action on the part of something intelligent means survival is lost. This is how evolution works. No guiding intelligence is really necessary to make it work that way; it's really a lack of intelligence that is the undoing of those individuals who, for whatever reason, fail to survive. Nature is relentless and ruthless about this, and doesn't care what aspect of cognitive intelligence failed the unfortunate individuals who were not able to anticipate what factor of their environment caused their early demise. Only the ones who succeed in anticipating danger (or opportunities) and act on those "instincts" to survive will make it. Groups of cooperating intelligent animals can also improve their chances of survival by deploying some members of the group as foragers and others as scouts for spotting predators or game. Humans and dogs co-evolved together because one had a keen olfactory system that could be deployed in various ways, and the other could use weapons to bring down larger game, thus allowing them to hunt together more effectively than either could otherwise manage alone.

Do you see no "pattern" to the deployment of intelligence here?

I answered it in other post to daecon..

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Yes - the one I asked just above.

If I want a cloud to exist, what should I do? What principle should I use? Does it need the real intelligence?

Then, from nothing, if you have intelligence, you can make/design/exist the cloud.

Do you have that intelligence?

 

[James R]

Is there anything that doesn't require the real intelligence?

 

[Daecon]

Shouldn't this be in pseudoscience instead of alternate theories?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Is there anything that doesn't require the real intelligence?

There is, flood. Flood had evolved from water.

 

[Daecon]

There is, flood. Flood had evolved from water.

Do you not understand what "evolve" means?

That would explain a lot.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Shouldn't this be in pseudoscience instead of alternate theories?

Then, tell me, what principle you use so that any X could exist? A car = X, for example.

PUT UP or SHUT UP.