MrIntelligentDesign
Registered Senior Member
I believed that there are similarities but mine are the only explanation that covers AP and all fields in science. AP has no universal definition of intelligence, thus, AP failed.
Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author of the new Intelligent Design <id> and the dis
- Thread starter MrIntelligentDesign
- Start date
OK. I assume intellen is intelligence.
What is X' suppose to be. X would inherit the ability to cope with dangers until it has had time to reproduce. If conditions change the dangers may be more than the species can cope with and X may become extinct.
What is X'? That is NOT a ratio. That is not math. That is nonsense as it stands.
MrIntelligentDesign
Registered Senior Member
X is anything that you would like to study in/for the topic of origin..like PC..
If you would like to ask if PC is intellen or naturen, you will make PC as X and the supporting features to PC are all X's...
If you would like to make it a ratio, it look like this
intellen = not X / X + X' x X' + ...
Gibberish.
I don't know what intellen or naturen are.
What supporting features? Electricity? An operator? Programs? I don't know if the problem is the language or if you are just confused.
That is not a ratio. That is not math. That is nonsense.
danshawen wrote:
Oh the irony.
MrID replied:
Which is was written without attributing the quote to Wiki.
Oh the irony.
MrIntelligentDesign
Registered Senior Member
AP was quoted by danshawen from Wikipedia and since he gave me the link, I assumed that he opened and read the topic of AP before using AP against me...thus, I did not give the link/ref since that is too obvious...
Naturen is Danish for "the nature", but I guess MrID use the word in a strange way.
He seems to use all words in a strange way. This is useless, I got to get some work done and quite wasting my time on this nonsense.
Here's to hoping James will soon put a padlock on this thread.
You are making the mistake of assuming the thing you are trying to prove.
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
And, without trying to be, which is even more priceless...
We did not have near this much fun the last time I helped debate Mr<id>. Thanks for everyone who chimed in, and especially Mr<id>.
Quite right. Formally this is known as:
Begging the Question--Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.
- Example: God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is inspired. Therefore, we know that God exists.
- Example: I am a good worker because Frank says so. How can we trust Frank? Simple: I will vouch for him.
. . . and of course, Henry the horse
DANCES THE WALTZ!
DANCES THE WALTZ!
Intelligent Design:
Mr Postrado contends that learning and solving problems is not intelligence, or presumably what he means is that intelligence isn't involved.
Is designing something like solving a problem? If not, then intelligent design is a contradiction (oh dear).
If so, then intelligent design is like solving a problem. Which leaves the argument where exactly, what problem is solved?
I doubt Mr Postrado can offer any insight with this, because it will involve him thinking about it. Unless of course, thinking doesn't involve any intelligence, which means . . .
The HENDERSONS will all be there, late of Sancho Pablez' fair
What a scene!
Over men and horses, hoops and garters, lastly through a hogshead
of REAL FIRE!
In this way Mr K will challenge the world!!
da da da de da.
(For some reason I can't get this tune out of my head when I look at this thread, it must be a head thread).
Mr Postrado contends that learning and solving problems is not intelligence, or presumably what he means is that intelligence isn't involved.
Is designing something like solving a problem? If not, then intelligent design is a contradiction (oh dear).
If so, then intelligent design is like solving a problem. Which leaves the argument where exactly, what problem is solved?
I doubt Mr Postrado can offer any insight with this, because it will involve him thinking about it. Unless of course, thinking doesn't involve any intelligence, which means . . .
The HENDERSONS will all be there, late of Sancho Pablez' fair
What a scene!
Over men and horses, hoops and garters, lastly through a hogshead
of REAL FIRE!
In this way Mr K will challenge the world!!
da da da de da.
(For some reason I can't get this tune out of my head when I look at this thread, it must be a head thread).
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
As far as human engineers are concerned, "designing" something useful (and in particular something that is DURABLE, which is the equivalent of evolutionary SURVIVAL will always involve a consideration of the principles of DISTRIBUTED LOAD, and also REDUNDANCY. These two principles applied in serial or nested fashion are the basis of all good engineering design practice. You also don't make something STRONGER or HEAVIER than it needs to be to do its job, because this will in general be a waste of the available resources or scarce materials that could be better applied to solving other kinds of engineering design problems.
As far as evolutionary design goes, life on this planet is pretty much a masterwork that is always in progress. Redundancy is there in the form of bilateral symmetry for most animals. We don't have two hearts, or two livers, but we do have two kidneys, and two lungs. Distributed load is a recurring theme throughout both the plant and animal kingdoms. I could probably go on talking about ID vs engineering like this for hours without mentioning or worrying about something called "intelligence" at all, because it really doesn't need to be involved. And at the end of such a discussion, those who had a strong belief in a supreme intelligent being who may or may not have been involved in the engineering tour de force that is nature would still believe that there was, and those who did not believe in a supreme intelligent being would simply go on looking for other ways to explain the success of nature. For every successful design nature produces, there are millions of failures, and that is hard to ignore, particularly if you are attempting to determine just how intelligent or not the designer was.
God knows, human engineers get their jobs done mostly by copying whatever we see in nature. Airplanes probably wouldn't exist without studying the flight of birds in great detail. The wheel and the arch existed in nature long before we copied them. Computers are the closest thing we have to an all original design, yet not even those would exist except for a desire to build something to help us do math.
And I don't think anyone here would even care a whit about a new definition of intelligence, one way or the other. It doesn't interest an engineer or a scientist. The more details an engineer manages to take care of to produce a durable, functional and comprehensive design that does everything expected of it or even a little more, the better the result. But engineers also understand, the better adapted a design becomes for solving one problem the less versatile it will be when something unexpected changes the equation for success.
That is what chiefly interests us, not trying to justify presuppositions of people who insist a dusty 2000+ text is anything but literature. Most of us lost count of how much it says that is inconsistent with reality and how inadequate it is for the purposes of science. There are living trees older than 6,000 years old and no mention of that having been created first. That's a shame, particularly for text printed first on sheepskin scrolls, and later transferred to paper that is a product made from trees. Scientists in general don't feel a need to worship anything written on sheepskin or paper with ink.
Not only do we not need a new <id>; we didn't need the first iteration.
As far as evolutionary design goes, life on this planet is pretty much a masterwork that is always in progress. Redundancy is there in the form of bilateral symmetry for most animals. We don't have two hearts, or two livers, but we do have two kidneys, and two lungs. Distributed load is a recurring theme throughout both the plant and animal kingdoms. I could probably go on talking about ID vs engineering like this for hours without mentioning or worrying about something called "intelligence" at all, because it really doesn't need to be involved. And at the end of such a discussion, those who had a strong belief in a supreme intelligent being who may or may not have been involved in the engineering tour de force that is nature would still believe that there was, and those who did not believe in a supreme intelligent being would simply go on looking for other ways to explain the success of nature. For every successful design nature produces, there are millions of failures, and that is hard to ignore, particularly if you are attempting to determine just how intelligent or not the designer was.
God knows, human engineers get their jobs done mostly by copying whatever we see in nature. Airplanes probably wouldn't exist without studying the flight of birds in great detail. The wheel and the arch existed in nature long before we copied them. Computers are the closest thing we have to an all original design, yet not even those would exist except for a desire to build something to help us do math.
And I don't think anyone here would even care a whit about a new definition of intelligence, one way or the other. It doesn't interest an engineer or a scientist. The more details an engineer manages to take care of to produce a durable, functional and comprehensive design that does everything expected of it or even a little more, the better the result. But engineers also understand, the better adapted a design becomes for solving one problem the less versatile it will be when something unexpected changes the equation for success.
That is what chiefly interests us, not trying to justify presuppositions of people who insist a dusty 2000+ text is anything but literature. Most of us lost count of how much it says that is inconsistent with reality and how inadequate it is for the purposes of science. There are living trees older than 6,000 years old and no mention of that having been created first. That's a shame, particularly for text printed first on sheepskin scrolls, and later transferred to paper that is a product made from trees. Scientists in general don't feel a need to worship anything written on sheepskin or paper with ink.
Not only do we not need a new <id>; we didn't need the first iteration.
Last edited:
MrID:
You start with "Intelligence is a principle...". What kind of principle? Do you mean a concept, a method, a means? What?
What does "reinforcing" mean in your definition?
For example, I need to eat food to survive and exist. Does that mean food is the real intelligence? Or that food has intelligence because it reinforces my existence? Or what?
Your definition says "to survive or to exist". Does that mean that intelligence can apply to things that do not survive but exist? Can you give an example of such a thing? Would a rock be a good example of intelligence?
You say intelligence "always act on asymmetrical phenonemon".
Please explain the difference between symmetrical and asymmetrical phenomena and give me a few examples of each type of phenomenon.
Is food a symmetrical phenomenon? Is a human being a symmetrical phenomenon? What decides whether something is symmetrical or asymmetrical, according to your usage of that term?
Then what?
So, you're saying that food is intelligent because it helps me survive. Is that right?
Correct?
Correct?
What do you mean by "intelligently designed"? You seem to have introduced the notion of design out of nowhere. Your definition of intelligence says nothing about design.
Are you saying food is intelligently designed? Or humans are? Or both?
Who is the designer?
Or are you talking about the food here?
If there are three foods (X = food) then we could find to food (X) a pattern, then food is intellen and it is perfect intellen. But, since humans have 6 foods, then humans are important intellen. Or are the six foods important intellen?
I don't think I'm understanding this.
What makes something important intellen? For that matter, what makes something intellen? What does "intellen" mean?
Doesn't this fit your definition of intelligence?
But why does this mean that the ToE has no basis or foundation?
I look forward to your reply.
Not so I understand your definition. And you haven't done any better here.
I don't understand it.
You start with "Intelligence is a principle...". What kind of principle? Do you mean a concept, a method, a means? What?
What does "reinforcing" mean in your definition?
For example, I need to eat food to survive and exist. Does that mean food is the real intelligence? Or that food has intelligence because it reinforces my existence? Or what?
Your definition says "to survive or to exist". Does that mean that intelligence can apply to things that do not survive but exist? Can you give an example of such a thing? Would a rock be a good example of intelligence?
You say intelligence "always act on asymmetrical phenonemon".
Please explain the difference between symmetrical and asymmetrical phenomena and give me a few examples of each type of phenomenon.
Is food a symmetrical phenomenon? Is a human being a symmetrical phenomenon? What decides whether something is symmetrical or asymmetrical, according to your usage of that term?
Ok. So, let's say X = me and X' = food. Would that be correct?
Then what?
If I would like me (X) to survive, I will surely make me with additional supports to food (X') to cope with dangers (like starvation). Is that right?
So, you're saying that food is intelligent because it helps me survive. Is that right?
Me to survive against dangers (as intelen) = me + food
Correct?
intellen = starvation: me + food (one problem = starvation. two solutions, me + food)
Correct?
Ok. I need food to live and survive here on Earth. I agree.
I need a pattern of food (X') to survive as an X = human being. Ok.
All human beings (X) need food. Ok.
What do you mean by "intelligently designed"? You seem to have introduced the notion of design out of nowhere. Your definition of intelligence says nothing about design.
Are you saying food is intelligently designed? Or humans are? Or both?
Who is the designer?
Food, etc. Yes.
If there are three people (X = humans) then humans (X) are intellen and perfect intellen.
Or are you talking about the food here?
If there are three foods (X = food) then we could find to food (X) a pattern, then food is intellen and it is perfect intellen. But, since humans have 6 foods, then humans are important intellen. Or are the six foods important intellen?
I don't think I'm understanding this.
What makes something important intellen? For that matter, what makes something intellen? What does "intellen" mean?
I can't see how knowing that humans need food requires replacing the theory of evolution with a new explanation of biology. I hope you can clarify.
ToE does use the concept that animals need food.
Doesn't this fit your definition of intelligence?
Hang on. Food is intellen, and is needed for humans to exist. Fine. I get that.
But why does this mean that the ToE has no basis or foundation?
I look forward to your reply.
MrIntelligentDesign
Registered Senior Member
Yeah, I was surprised that "naturen" was a Danish word but my "naturen" means "non-intelligently designed X".
