MrIntelligentDesign,
In applications,
(1) how do we know if a biological cell is designed or not?
Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car?
Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?
I found #3 especially amusing.
A rectangle with four sides of equal length is a square. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectangle
That takes care of the maths.
It means that we can and know how to categorize.
Read #3 again . Apparently you also don't know how to categorize or construct a proper sentence.
To answer your question as you intended (but failed) to construct it. Let's categorize it properly.
I know that a square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle is not always a square.
In the case of the Lemurs, they learned very quickly that only the amount of objects was pertinent to the test regardless of category of objects to be counted. A clear indication of recognizing (categorizing) the principal requirement of the test.
MrIntelligentDesign,
In applications,
(1) how do we know if a biological cell is designed or not?
Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car?
Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?
I found #3 especially amusing.
A rectangle with four sides of equal length is a square. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectangle
That takes care of the maths.
It means that we can and know how to categorize.
Read #3 again . Apparently you also don't know how to categorize or construct a proper sentence.
To answer your question as you intended (but failed) to construct it. Let's categorize it properly.
I know that a square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle is not always a square.
In the case of the Lemurs, they learned very quickly that only the amount of objects was pertinent to the test regardless of category of objects to be counted. A clear indication of recognizing (categorizing) the principal requirement of the test.
I am just giving you hint that we can now categorize any X for origin and cause & effect when I gave you square and rectangle as example.
Now, about Lemur, Lemur used only instinct and not intelligence, thus, you are wrong and have no idea of what is the real and universal intelligence is.
]The old ID was not science since it used "complexity" from Darwin. All science from Darwin are not science.
The old ID was not science because it was a blatant attempt to disguise Young Earth Creationism as science. You need to read the Dover decision.
The new Intelligent Design is science and ToE is religion.
What is your testable hypothesis? You want your idea to be considered science you need to present it scientifically. BTW, the Theory of Evolution is one of the most successful theories in the history of science.
thus, if there will another Dover-like trial, call me and let us fight legally and scientifically and see who has science or not...
If your new ID is science write it up and submit it to a reputable peer-reviewed journal. If you are right you'll have a Nobel prize in your future.
1. The old ID was not science because it used Darwin's original idea of "complexity". Darwin did not produce any science.
2. Hypothesis from the new ID? That all intelligent process or products (intellen) has always this pattern: asymmetrical. Read my OP and see for yourself and come back here for more.
3. PEER=REVIEW?? Did you read my science book titled, "Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design : a documentary"? If not, read it and see how your beloved peer-reviewers did science..
A quick question about the legal standings.
ID lost the court battle a few years back on the First Amendment grounds which barred the teaching in public schools.
Where is your new ID on 1st Amendment standings?
The old ID was not science since it used "complexity" from Darwin. All science from Darwin are not science.
The new Intelligent Design is science and ToE is religion.
thus, if there will another Dover-like trial, call me and let us fight legally and scientifically and see who has science or not...
The real world works in the opposite direction. If someone wants to call you as a witness they can, but to get your theory to trial you'll first have to get it in a textbook and into a school somewhere, then see if someone challenges it. You're actually being challenged right now, and you are losing. But don't let me stop you, find a school that will teach your ideas. Let us know how that goes.I will wait for that time since I am not yet famous. Help me to become famous and you will see who has science or not.
I will wait for that time since I am not yet famous. Help me to become famous and you will see who has science or not.
This one has many traits of a crackpot.I discovered the real and universal intelligence and I've written 6 science books for them in Amazon as e-books. That is my claim.
If you could tell me the real and universal intelligence that is too different from my new discoveries with experiment, then, I will see it and I will compare my new discoveries with you. If you win, I will delete all my science books and videos in YouTube.
Remember that IF I'm a crackpot, you could easily smash my new discoveries through the power of ToE. ToE has been around 160 years now.
If not, then, you are telling a lie here or you are an insane since you concluded something you did not even know.
MrIntelligentDesign,
In applications,
(1) how do we know if a biological cell is designed or not?
Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car?
Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?
I found #3 especially amusing.
A rectangle with four sides of equal length is a square. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectangle
That takes care of the maths.
It means that we can and know how to categorize.
Read #3 again . Apparently you also don't know how to categorize or construct a proper sentence.
To answer your question as you intended (but failed) to construct it. Let's categorize it properly.
I know that a square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle is not always a square.
In the case of the Lemurs, they learned very quickly that only the amount of objects was pertinent to the test regardless of category of objects to be counted. A clear indication of recognizing (categorizing) the principal requirement of the test.
I am just giving you hint that we can now categorize any X for origin and cause & effect when I gave you square and rectangle as example. Logically flawed hints are not helpful.
X by definition is the symbolic expression of an unknown condition and certainly cannot be categorized as predictive of cause and effect. For example,
in x + 2 = 5 the letter x is unknown, but the law of inverses can be used to discover its value: x=3. In E=mc^2, the letters E and m are variables, and the letter c is a constant. Algebra gives methods for solving equations and expressing formulas that are much easier (for those who know how to use them) than the older method of writing everything out in words.
Now, about Lemur, Lemur used only instinct and not intelligence, thus, you are wrong and have no idea of what is the real and universal intelligence is.
Instinct maybe?
instinct, noun ,
: a way of behaving, thinking, or feeling that is not learned
: a natural desire or tendency that makes you want to act in a particular way
: something you know without learning it or thinking about it
: a natural ability
Of course, it still remains to be seen if you have an intelligent idea of what is the real and universal intelligence, or if you are just responding instinctually.
MrIntelligentDesign,
In applications,
(1) how do we know if a biological cell is designed or not?
Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car?
Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?
I found #3 especially amusing.
A rectangle with four sides of equal length is a square. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectangle
That takes care of the maths.
It means that we can and know how to categorize.
Read #3 again . Apparently you also don't know how to categorize or construct a proper sentence.
To answer your question as you intended (but failed) to construct it. Let's categorize it properly.
I know that a square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle is not always a square.
In the case of the Lemurs, they learned very quickly that only the amount of objects was pertinent to the test regardless of category of objects to be counted. A clear indication of recognizing (categorizing) the principal requirement of the test.
I am just giving you hint that we can now categorize any X for origin and cause & effect when I gave you square and rectangle as example. Logically flawed hints are not helpful.
X by definition is the symbolic expression of an unknown condition and certainly cannot be categorized as predictive of cause and effect. For example,
in x + 2 = 5 the letter x is unknown, but the law of inverses can be used to discover its value: x=3. In E=mc^2, the letters E and m are variables, and the letter c is a constant. Algebra gives methods for solving equations and expressing formulas that are much easier (for those who know how to use them) than the older method of writing everything out in words.
Now, about Lemur, Lemur used only instinct and not intelligence, thus, you are wrong and have no idea of what is the real and universal intelligence is.
Instinct maybe?
instinct, noun ,
: a way of behaving, thinking, or feeling that is not learned
: a natural desire or tendency that makes you want to act in a particular way
: something you know without learning it or thinking about it
: a natural ability
Of course, it still remains to be seen if you have an intelligent idea of what is the real and universal intelligence, or if you are just responding instinctually.Yes, I used X since we still don't know which object that we would like to study - thus, unknown.
Thus, your example is wrong.
About the math of intelligence. You should have asked that first before you concluded that I'm wrong.
instinct, noun ,
: a way of behaving, thinking, or feeling that is not learned
: a natural desire or tendency that makes you want to act in a particular way
: something you know without learning it or thinking about it
: a natural ability
Of course, it still remains to be seen if you have an intelligent idea of what is the real and universal intelligence, or if you are just responding instinctually.
Yes, I used X since we still don't know which object that we would like to study - thus, unknown.
Wel, you are the author of the OP thread. So what is the object that we would like to study?
a) The Unknown (self-explanatory)?
b) Intelligent Design?
c) Forms of Intelligence
d) The Mathematical function of the universe (the way things actually work)
About the math of intelligence. You should have ask that first before you concluded that I'm wrong.
I have not concluded anything yet, just brought your attention to some inconsistencies in your narrative.
After 4 pages, I still have no clue what you are talkig about except the Title you have afforded yourself and some incomprehensible talk about ID (I think) and an equation which is supposed to be a ToE, but not a TOE.
instinct, noun ,
: a way of behaving, thinking, or feeling that is not learned
: a natural desire or tendency that makes you want to act in a particular way
: something you know without learning it or thinking about it
: a natural ability
Of course, it still remains to be seen if you have an intelligent idea of what is the real and universal intelligence, or if you are just responding instinctually.
Yes, I used X since we still don't know which object that we would like to study - thus, unknown.
Wel, you are the author of the OP thread. So what is the object that we would like to study?
a) The Unknown (self-explanatory)?
b) Intelligent Design?
c) Forms of Intelligence
d) The Mathematical function of the universe (the way things actually work)
About the math of intelligence. You should have ask that first before you concluded that I'm wrong.
I have not concluded anything yet, just brought your attention to some inconsistencies in your narrative.
After 4 pages, I still have no clue what you are talkig about except the Title you have afforded yourself and some incomprehensible talk about ID (I think) and an equation which is supposed to be a ToE, but not a TOE.
If you read my OP, you can see that I claimed that I discovered the real intelligence.
I will wait for that time since I am not yet famous. Help me to become famous and you will see who has science or not.
This one has many traits of a crackpot.I discovered the real and universal intelligence and I've written 6 science books for them in Amazon as e-books. That is my claim.
If you could tell me the real and universal intelligence that is too different from my new discoveries with experiment, then, I will see it and I will compare my new discoveries with you. If you win, I will delete all my science books and videos in YouTube.
Remember that IF I'm a crackpot, you could easily smash my new discoveries through the power of ToE. ToE has been around 160 years now.
If not, then, you are telling a lie here or you are an insane since you concluded something you did not even know.
The "crackpot" trait you have is that you think your ideas merit you being famous, but for some reason, you aren't famous. The reason you aren't famous is that your ideas don't have merit. You also seem to think that somehow others became famous first, without really deserving it, then they got to claim their ideas had merit. In science, it doesn't work that way anymore.
I admit I haven't read every line of your posts, but this is the first I've heard about any self-published books. Why aren't you submitting these ideas to physicists? Why do you think the way to gain followers is to come to a CFI discussion forum?
I will wait for that time since I am not yet famous. Help me to become famous and you will see who has science or not.
This one has many traits of a crackpot.I discovered the real and universal intelligence and I've written 6 science books for them in Amazon as e-books. That is my claim.
If you could tell me the real and universal intelligence that is too different from my new discoveries with experiment, then, I will see it and I will compare my new discoveries with you. If you win, I will delete all my science books and videos in YouTube.
Remember that IF I'm a crackpot, you could easily smash my new discoveries through the power of ToE. ToE has been around 160 years now.
If not, then, you are telling a lie here or you are an insane since you concluded something you did not even know.
Oh whoop de doo. You published some ebooks. I guess that puts you right up there with Charles F Darwin his own self when it comes to scientific genius.
How can I refute something you cannot articulate? Besides, it isn't up to other people to prove you wrong, it is your job to prove yourself right, which you have not even come close to do doing. Repeating the same bullshit over and over does not make your bullshit true.
If you want to overturn the theory of evolution you'll need some compelling evidence. So far all you've presented is hand waving and vague claims about universal intelligence.
The new Intelligent Design called that ratio an ASYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.
Sounds interesting. Can you expand on that?
It is simple:
There are always patterns for any origins or cause & effect of X in the entire existence.
naturen = natural process or natural products = problem:solution (or problem-solution)....a symmetry or symmetrical phenomenon
intellen = intelligent process or intelligent designed products = problem:solution-solution-solution (or problem-solution-solution-solution, three solutions)...an asymmetrical phenomenon
instinct, noun ,
: a way of behaving, thinking, or feeling that is not learned
: a natural desire or tendency that makes you want to act in a particular way
: something you know without learning it or thinking about it
: a natural ability
Of course, it still remains to be seen if you have an intelligent idea of what is the real and universal intelligence, or if you are just responding instinctually.
Yes, I used X since we still don't know which object that we would like to study - thus, unknown.
Wel, you are the author of the OP thread. So what is the object that we would like to study?
a) The Unknown (self-explanatory)?
b) Intelligent Design?
c) Forms of Intelligence
d) The Mathematical function of the universe (the way things actually work)
About the math of intelligence. You should have ask that first before you concluded that I'm wrong.
I have not concluded anything yet, just brought your attention to some inconsistencies in your narrative.
After 4 pages, I still have no clue what you are talkig about except the Title you have afforded yourself and some incomprehensible talk about ID (I think) and an equation which is supposed to be a ToE, but not a TOE.
If you read my OP, you can see that I claimed that I discovered the real intelligence.
Of course, you did. What a clever boy!
The new Intelligent Design called that ratio an ASYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.
Sounds interesting. Can you expand on that?
It is simple:
There are always patterns for any origins or cause & effect of X in the entire existence.
naturen = natural process or natural products = problem:solution (or problem-solution)....a symmetry or symmetrical phenomenon
intellen = intelligent process or intelligent designed products = problem:solution-solution-solution (or problem-solution-solution-solution, three solutions)...an asymmetrical phenomenon
Let me see if I understand you correctly.
a) Nature is not intelligent because it is symmetrical and just works through mathematical determinism?
b) God is intelligent because it is asymmetrical phenomenon and exempt from mathematical determinism.
I found an interesting article on asymmetrical thinking.
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/13/asymmetrical-brains-help-fish-and-us-to-multi-task/