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

paddoboy said:
Religions obvious sprouted due to man's inability to explain the world around him.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Religions sprouted in order to comfort the bereaved and to formalize the tradition of the belief in an afterlife which did not include tribes of enemies or animals who may have killed your loved one. It would do mourners little good to think of a uniform afterlife filled with as many adversaries they had in life filling an eternal death with more suffering and misery. Even if that were the truth, which it isn't.

Over time religion took on other functions; coordinating the planting and harvesting of crops, marriages, teaching children the ways of tribal culture and healthy moral attitudes which originally at least, did not include any bigotry.

Religion is not going away any time soon.
 
Last edited:
spidergoat said:
The thing is, intelligence is not a theory. How does it work? What is the mechanism by which intelligence acts to lead to a species? What useful predictions can it make?
Click to expand...
On the level of a paramecium, intelligence is avoiding areas too hot or too cold, swimming, finding and consuming nourishment. Communicating with other paramecia about such conditions using UV. It does all of this without possessing a single neuron.

On the level of a reptile, intelligence is finding prey and mates and avoiding predators. It does this with a brain having only an amygdala.

On the level of a mammal, intelligence is modeling all of the things a reptile reacts to instinctively and using those models of prey, mates and predators to predict how all of the above will behave and how to optimize the chances of survival. The beginnings of a neocortex emerge to enable more complex modeling.

On the level of a human being, intelligence begins to model both the behaviors of other human beings and of more esoteric ideas like science and math. A system of chemical rewards reinforces emotional attachment to other human beings, parents, associates, mates, and others to such a high degree of proficiency that each of us cares (or is supposed to care) for the feelings and survival of others. This is a great survival benefit, because such attachments contribute directly to whether parents, friends, mates, and associates will take active roles in promoting your well being.

At every level of intelligence, sensory motor integration of nerves and sensory organs are key to behaviors that enhance survival, ignoring some stimuli that are peripheral to vital survival functions, and turning up the volume on stimuli that may mean predators are close or others are in deadly danger.

How many definitions of intelligence is that? Do we really need any more? Don't think so. We worked all of this out about intelligence on Jeff Hawkins 'On Intelligence' discussion forum before Mr. Postado wrote his first book on the subject. We all knew perfectly well that Darwin's ToE made no adjustments for the self-selection of intelligence. That was deliberate. There is never any real guarantee that a particular evolutionary path will result in improved cognition. Mr. Postado is perhaps the best example I can think of to demonstrate that to the satisfaction of everyone. If he succeeds in pushing his sequel to <id>, it won't be because people were just too intelligent to realize, it is leading them all down a blind alley where anything like real science is completely ignored. They might as well be reptiles.
 
Last edited:
spidergoat said:
I wasn't talking about intelligence in general, just Mr. ID's creator intelligence. It's not a theory.
Click to expand...
And as far as creator intelligence goes:

It took no help from lesser intelligence for something to create bound energy, atomic structure, nuclear fusion furnaces to forge them in, the arch, the wheel, NEAR PERFECTLY SPHERICAL STARS, planets, and moons, EVOLUTION, DNA, photosynthesis, sex, and the human brain that is capable of understanding all of this, science and math if you allow it.

And Mr Postrado simply ignored this post like it was never there, because it didn't fit into his scheme of naturens vs intellens. If you are a scientist, the patterns, if there are any, appear quite naturally and do not require superstition, invisible friends or intelligences, or lies to make other people believe that you might understand what you say you do any better than they already do and are capable of verifying for themselves. Because superstitions and fairy tales, in common with most lies, have very little real value in terms of survival or intelligence. Only a reptile with emotional issues would believe that it was otherwise.
 
Last edited:
danshawen said:
On the level of a paramecium, intelligence is avoiding areas too hot or too cold, swimming, finding and consuming nourishment. Communicating with other paramecia about such conditions using UV. It does all of this without possessing a single neuron.

On the level of a reptile, intelligence is finding prey and mates and avoiding predators. It does this with a brain having only an amygdala.

On the level of a mammal, intelligence is modeling all of the things a reptile reacts to instinctively and using those models of prey, mates and predators to predict how all of the above will behave and how to optimize the chances of survival. The beginnings of a neocortex emerge to enable more complex modeling.

On the level of a human being, intelligence begins to model both the behaviors of other human beings and of more esoteric ideas like science and math. A system of chemical rewards reinforces emotional attachment to other human beings, parents, associates, mates, and others to such a high degree of proficiency that each of us cares (or is supposed to care) for the feelings and survival of others. This is a great survival benefit, because such attachments contribute directly to whether parents, friends, mates, and associates will take active roles in promoting your well being.

At every level of intelligence, sensory motor integration of nerves and sensory organs are key to behaviors that enhance survival, ignoring some stimuli that are peripheral to vital survival functions, and turning up the volume on stimuli that may mean predators are close or others are in deadly danger.

How many definitions of intelligence is that? Do we really need any more? Don't think so. We worked all of this out about intelligence on Jeff Hawkins 'On Intelligence' discussion forum before Mr. Postrado wrote his first book on the subject. We all knew perfectly well that Darwin's ToE made no adjustments for the self-selection of intelligence. That was deliberate. There is never any real guarantee that a particular evolutionary path will result in improved cognition. Mr. Postrado is perhaps the best example I can think of to demonstrate that to the satisfaction of everyone. If he succeeds in pushing his sequel to <id>, it won't be because people were just too intelligent to realize, it is leading them all down a blind alley where anything like real science is completely ignored. They might as well be reptiles.
Click to expand...
You have a good reply but you are totally mistaken.

In Biology, by using intelligence, the replacement for ToE is not intelligence but Biological Interrelation, BiTs, in where intelligence is being used. ToE never uses intelligence, thus, for ToE, intelligence is equal to zero and stupidity is 1.

Also, there are more than 60+ definitions that were compiled and published in arxiv.org. There are probably 80+ definitions of intelligence around the world. Why there are so any? ToE had messed this topic.

Thus, there is only one intelligence and it is always universal and this intelligence that I've discovered had summed up all the 80+ definitions of intelligence that we have.

Thus, in your post, you had used the word "intelligence" many times and yet you have no clue about this topic, which means that your post/reply is crap.
 
danshawen said:
Not at all. Religions sprouted in order to comfort the bereaved and to formalize the tradition of the belief in an afterlife which did not include tribes of enemies or animals who may have killed your loved one. It would do mourners little good to think of a uniform afterlife filled with as many adversaries they had in life filling an eternal death with more suffering and misery. Even if that were the truth, which it isn't.

Over time religion took on other functions; coordinating the planting and harvesting of crops, marriages, teaching children the ways of tribal culture and healthy moral attitudes which originally at least, did not include any bigotry.

Religion is not going away any time soon.
Click to expand...
Religions is like ToE. Religion is any conclusion or explanation in nature that has no experiment to back up.
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
Why do you ask?
Click to expand...
I ask because YOU made a specific claim.
Please substantiate this claim, answer those questions.

Are these maths being used for origin of any X like universe, Cosmos, life, species..etc?
Click to expand...
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.
 
James R said:
Why does somebody have to know about the real intelligence in order to work out the age of the Earth? Isn't that a question of geology, radioactive dating, or whatever?
Click to expand...
That is a good question!

Let us assume for a moment that the whole existence was originated by a ROCK. We all know that rock has no intelligence and we can assume that it would take time for the ROCK to form this universe or Cosmos or existence...

From this, we now assume that since ROCK is slow, then, it would take for ROCK to fork this universe, thus, we conclude that old age of earth is science.

But is the ROCK the right candidate for the originator of existence? If not, which?

But we all know that so that X could exist, in the topic of origin, intelligence is always needed..thus, we can say with certainty that it is intelligence that originated the whole existence. Thus, IA exists. And when IA exist, IA will use intelligence to exist X, thus, it would never take time for IA to form this existence...

Thus, the conclusion that the earth is young is logical and scientific and close to reality than old earth!
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
Thus, in your post, you had used the word "intelligence" many times and yet you have no clue about this topic, which means that your post/reply is crap.
Click to expand...
Your posts on the same topic do not quite rise even to that stature, but thank you for your opinion just the same.

Unless you have any other insults for me, I think we are finished. Your opinion is duly noted.
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
That is what you are hoping to happen in reality. But it did not even work at all!
Click to expand...
MrIntelligentDesign said:
That is a claim and conclusion - not science anyway. Are you willing to fight and defend that with my new discovered intelligence?
Click to expand...
We are both in territory where what we say in defense of our views can be waved off. It would come down to the weight we give to our views vs. the other's views. Who is to be the judge and jury, what panel is in place to decide on the merits of each case. Do you predict you would win, since you can reject any argument, and if I am right about that, I predict no one would win, except where convincing evidence is put forward. That is what is lacking on both sides.
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
Thus, the conclusion that the earth is young is logical and scientific and close to reality than old earth!
Click to expand...
Nice of you to be honest about that opinion. I disagree, and what's more, real science disagrees. It is not logical. It is not scientific. It is willfully ignorant of dating by means of radioactive decay. It is willfully ignorant of the fossil record. It is willfully ignorant of the science of genetics, which is something you should pay more attention to, because the father of that branch of science was also a man of strong faith.
 
Last edited:
quantum_wave said:
We are both in territory where what we say in defense of our views can be waved off. It would come down to the weight we give to our views vs. the other's views. Who is to be the judge and jury, what panel is in place to decide on the merits of each case. Do you predict you would win, since you can reject any argument, and if I am right about that, I predict no one would win, except where convincing evidence is put forward. That is what is lacking on both sides.
Click to expand...
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 must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top