The New Intelligent Design <id> and Its Powerful Correct Scientific Explanations

[excreationist]

I think mainstream YEC journals wouldn't be happy with him either.... I mean they are quite slick and make a lot of sense

"Make a lot of sense" is quite a bit over the line. I think a better description would be that they are internally consistent. Their articles are based on an often unstated assumption that the Bible (at least the parts they like) is inerrant truth.

I mean compared to MrIntelligentDesign.... the YEC journal articles have a higher level of quality and intellectualism....

 

[bilby]

I think mainstream YEC journals wouldn't be happy with him either.... I mean they are quite slick and make a lot of sense

"Make a lot of sense" is quite a bit over the line. I think a better description would be that they are internally consistent. Their articles are based on an often unstated assumption that the Bible (at least the parts they like) is inerrant truth.

I mean compared to MrIntelligentDesign.... the YEC journal articles have a higher level of quality and intellectualism....

I could eat a set of Scrabble tiles, and shit an article with a higher level of quality and intellectualism.

 

[Ford]

I think mainstream YEC journals wouldn't be happy with him either.... I mean they are quite slick and make a lot of sense

"Make a lot of sense" is quite a bit over the line. I think a better description would be that they are internally consistent. Their articles are based on an often unstated assumption that the Bible (at least the parts they like) is inerrant truth.

I mean compared to MrIntelligentDesign.... the YEC journal articles have a higher level of quality and intellectualism....

I could eat a set of Scrabble tiles, and shit an article with a higher level of quality and intellectualism.

I have half a mind to use this as inspiration to dub myself "Scrabbletileshitter" and go to an ID forum to challenge them in a mocking fashion similar to MrID.

 

[steve_bank]

A claim of any kind can be logically consistent meaning n logical fallacies or contradictiond, but not be refekctd in reality.

Given god is true, then this follows logically.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I have half a mind to use this as inspiration to dub myself "Scrabbletileshitter" and go to an ID forum to challenge them in a mocking fashion similar to MrID.

Enjoy wasting you time. Have some good rum or other libation handy.

 

[Jarhyn]

An interesting quote:
Amazon product ASIN B00HWUX22O

From the Author
NOW, even until today, no one had ever understood my new discoveries. I am looking also for a scientist who could understand my new discoveries and help me share my new discoveries to the world and be understood. Are you my Max Planck?

I checked out the link. It's gibberish, word salad. He published on amazon kindle because scientific journals refused the work. He drops Einstein's name claiming that no one understood Einstein at the time either. I think I'll check out youtube.

Could only stand to watch about 8 minutes of his delusional delivery on youtube. Id say the ID people want him to go away too.

Are those peer-reviewers in science journals qualified to peer review the topic of intelligence, if they themselves were wrong on that topic? I will review them, but they? Maybe they were not educated well...

Intelligence has nothing particularly to do with evolution. It's one of many consequences of evolution, but evolution was a fact for billions of years before intelligence arose, and will continue long after it no longer exists.

Evolution is completely neutral on the subject of intelligence, in the same way that gravity is. Intelligent animals fall down, and so do trees. Gravity doesn't treat them any differently.

I don't know that evolution was, in fact, around for any time at all before intelligence arose.

One might in fact consider life to be "that which models math", or "that which holds a machine that differentiates"

In this model, the differentiation machine is "intelligent".

The more important thing here is to recognize that simple intelligence arising from simple, available chemical subcomponents is entirely possible.

Then all that intelligence has to do is make beneficial mistakes that improve the model.

Of course, we know the mechanism of this, these accidents, is random damage or chemical conformities being momentarily deformed by random events such that hiccups happen on the template and things happen "abnormally".

We know this must happen, can't not happen.

So as soon as life arises and is capable of making mistakes, it will start getting smarter over time, and then it gets into an arms race with itself in the zero sum game for resources.

Once a single intelligence is accidentally born such that it reproduces effectively, the evolution of more intelligence is inevitable.

It doesn't have to be godlike or supreme. It could as easily be a bit of RNA contained in a lipid layer and trapped with an enzyme or three.

That kind of shit doesn't have to be designed, it just has to happen, which it inevitably must as demanded by the statistical realities of our universe.

 

[Elixir]

So new, so intelligent and so scientifickalistic, I think I’m gonna puke!!

 

[bilby]

An interesting quote:
Amazon product ASIN B00HWUX22O

From the Author
NOW, even until today, no one had ever understood my new discoveries. I am looking also for a scientist who could understand my new discoveries and help me share my new discoveries to the world and be understood. Are you my Max Planck?

I checked out the link. It's gibberish, word salad. He published on amazon kindle because scientific journals refused the work. He drops Einstein's name claiming that no one understood Einstein at the time either. I think I'll check out youtube.

Could only stand to watch about 8 minutes of his delusional delivery on youtube. Id say the ID people want him to go away too.

Are those peer-reviewers in science journals qualified to peer review the topic of intelligence, if they themselves were wrong on that topic? I will review them, but they? Maybe they were not educated well...

Intelligence has nothing particularly to do with evolution. It's one of many consequences of evolution, but evolution was a fact for billions of years before intelligence arose, and will continue long after it no longer exists.

Evolution is completely neutral on the subject of intelligence, in the same way that gravity is. Intelligent animals fall down, and so do trees. Gravity doesn't treat them any differently.

I don't know that evolution was, in fact, around for any time at all before intelligence arose.

One might in fact consider life to be "that which models math", or "that which holds a machine that differentiates"

In this model, the differentiation machine is "intelligent".

The more important thing here is to recognize that simple intelligence arising from simple, available chemical subcomponents is entirely possible.

Then all that intelligence has to do is make beneficial mistakes that improve the model.

Of course, we know the mechanism of this, these accidents, is random damage or chemical conformities being momentarily deformed by random events such that hiccups happen on the template and things happen "abnormally".

We know this must happen, can't not happen.

So as soon as life arises and is capable of making mistakes, it will start getting smarter over time, and then it gets into an arms race with itself in the zero sum game for resources.

Once a single intelligence is accidentally born such that it reproduces effectively, the evolution of more intelligence is inevitable.

It doesn't have to be godlike or supreme. It could as easily be a bit of RNA contained in a lipid layer and trapped with an enzyme or three.

That kind of shit doesn't have to be designed, it just has to happen, which it inevitably must as demanded by the statistical realities of our universe.

Redefining the word 'intelligent' so as to mean merely 'complex' achieves only confusion.

I can understand why you might do it, but the benefits are massively outweighed by the problems it causes. Language is intended to convey ideas, and by amplifying your pet idea in this way, you are drowning out the other ideas that other people are using these same words to convey.

You should stop doing that.

I know you won't; But you should.

 

[Jarhyn]

An interesting quote:
Amazon product ASIN B00HWUX22O

From the Author
NOW, even until today, no one had ever understood my new discoveries. I am looking also for a scientist who could understand my new discoveries and help me share my new discoveries to the world and be understood. Are you my Max Planck?

I checked out the link. It's gibberish, word salad. He published on amazon kindle because scientific journals refused the work. He drops Einstein's name claiming that no one understood Einstein at the time either. I think I'll check out youtube.

Could only stand to watch about 8 minutes of his delusional delivery on youtube. Id say the ID people want him to go away too.

Are those peer-reviewers in science journals qualified to peer review the topic of intelligence, if they themselves were wrong on that topic? I will review them, but they? Maybe they were not educated well...

Intelligence has nothing particularly to do with evolution. It's one of many consequences of evolution, but evolution was a fact for billions of years before intelligence arose, and will continue long after it no longer exists.

Evolution is completely neutral on the subject of intelligence, in the same way that gravity is. Intelligent animals fall down, and so do trees. Gravity doesn't treat them any differently.

I don't know that evolution was, in fact, around for any time at all before intelligence arose.

One might in fact consider life to be "that which models math", or "that which holds a machine that differentiates"

In this model, the differentiation machine is "intelligent".

The more important thing here is to recognize that simple intelligence arising from simple, available chemical subcomponents is entirely possible.

Then all that intelligence has to do is make beneficial mistakes that improve the model.

Of course, we know the mechanism of this, these accidents, is random damage or chemical conformities being momentarily deformed by random events such that hiccups happen on the template and things happen "abnormally".

We know this must happen, can't not happen.

So as soon as life arises and is capable of making mistakes, it will start getting smarter over time, and then it gets into an arms race with itself in the zero sum game for resources.

Once a single intelligence is accidentally born such that it reproduces effectively, the evolution of more intelligence is inevitable.

It doesn't have to be godlike or supreme. It could as easily be a bit of RNA contained in a lipid layer and trapped with an enzyme or three.

That kind of shit doesn't have to be designed, it just has to happen, which it inevitably must as demanded by the statistical realities of our universe.

Redefining the word 'intelligent' so as to mean merely 'complex' achieves only confusion.

I can understand why you might do it, but the benefits are massively outweighed by the problems it causes. Language is intended to convey ideas, and by amplifying your pet idea in this way, you are drowning out the other ideas that other people are using these same words to convey.

You should stop doing that.

I know you won't; But you should.

Complex does not mean "models math". "Complex" means something else.

Complex means, if you want to use common definitions, "consisting of many different and connected parts".

An intelligent system can arise from nothing, but an intelligent system is just, to me, "a system which implements a model". It can be something incredibly simple.

All life is in some way intelligent, but that doesn't mean that intelligence is necessary to create life. It doesn't mean that this guy understands a damn thing about what makes a thing intelligent or how to do anything but assemble word salads for sale to gullible rubes. It doesn't mean that it evolved at most points in time "intelligently".

I suspect at some time between now and then, between 4 billion years, it managed some interesting ways to be a little less "accidental" about things. 4 billion is a lot of years, a lot of generations, and a lot of mechanisms that we are only just now realizing are there.

Language is intended to convey certain ideas so when people attempt to use language to specially plead certain ideas apart, or create arbitrary walls around them that serve no useful function but to limit people from seeing general concepts as generally as they apply, then language serves to change and if you don't like that you can bark up a different tree.

 

[bilby]

an intelligent system is just, to me, "a system which implements a model". It can be something incredibly simple.

That's lovely.

It's not what it means to anyone else in this thread though, so my criticism stands.

A definition of intelligence that encompasses bacteria and trees is just a pointless distraction in this discussion.

It's bad enough that the OP isn't clear about wtf he means by 'intelligence'; Bringing in yet more confusion is counterproductive.

 

[Jarhyn]

an intelligent system is just, to me, "a system which implements a model". It can be something incredibly simple.

That's lovely.

It's not what it means to anyone else in this thread though, so my criticism stands.

A definition of intelligence that encompasses bacteria and trees is just a pointless distraction in this discussion.

It's bad enough that the OP isn't clear about wtf he means by 'intelligence'; Bringing in yet more confusion is counterproductive.

Hey man, this is an open forum. We're discussing intelligence. At this point I don't give a shit what crazy narcissistic cranks the crank factory is spitting out today.

I study intelligence. Artificial intelligence, biological intelligence, darwinistic intelligence, various forms of learning systems in general.

I am here to discuss the idea of intelligence on this forum that is full of open participation, and which is devoted to the ability to do so.

I have no obligation to do anything you wish, nor will I. I have an agency in me that is often beligerant and contrary!

But more than anything I have an agency that demands not putting artificial lines around an idea just because people tell me I ought. I discern for myself where the borders of the concepts in my head best lay, not you.

I am free to speak of them, and you are free to moan, surely, about that, but you aren't free to shut me up, and you are not free, ultimately, to be right about the boundaries of what constitutes intelligence.

I am surely wrong too, but hopefully less so.

You can both be wrong, you, and that ID guy, for all I care, about that.

As it is, I find it interesting insofar as mutations around malarial resistance appear to be nonrandom, specifically as the area seemed targeted for mutagenic activity.

Now that implies that certain mutations happen occasionally that make the mutation of certain other areas of DNA more likely.

There would be selection pressure for any trait that made mutation more likely to happen in places mutation more often ends up being beneficial.

This is just yet another aspect to the learning system that is "our selfish genes".

If you don't like the fact that sometimes our meat does strange things and has a lot more to it than it seems at first glance... Not my problem. It's entirely yours, and I'm going to leave you to it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The question occurs to me how an experiment would be constructed to test for intelligence vs non-intelligence. It depends on how we define intelligence. I kind of like the idea that intelligence is intrinsic in everything or at least relative. Is there really such a thing as non-intelligent life? The ability to reproduce would seem to be an intelligent act but if you do a search of how intelligence is defined or detected within scientific circles it's understandably all over the place.

 

[Jarhyn]

The question occurs to me how an experiment would be constructed to test for intelligence vs non-intelligence. It depends on how we define intelligence. I kind of like the idea that intelligence is intrinsic in everything or at least relative. Is there really such a thing as non-intelligent life? The ability to reproduce would seem to be an intelligent act but if you do a search of how intelligence is defined or detected within scientific circles it's understandably all over the place.

The closest thing I can gather to non-intelligent life is in the form of virii, but if we want to take it to that extent of understanding we are travelling roads of academia rather than roads of common speech, where it starts to collapse towards singular ideas within game theory and falls into the same idea as "agent" and "player", and then "graph structure"..

It means that the real words spoken by the question "is it intelligent" is "is it more intelligent than °°°?" Where °°° is a contextually understood threshold.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It means that the real words spoken by the question "is it intelligent" is "is it more intelligent than °°°?" Where °°° is a contextually understood threshold.

Maybe DNA is the threshold. A virus has genetic code but must have a host to reproduce. In a sense the host is simply its food, and all reproduction is ultimately based on obtaining "food." Maybe the threshold for intelligence is the ability to obtain food and reproduce, which is essentially the same definition for life.

 

[Jarhyn]

It means that the real words spoken by the question "is it intelligent" is "is it more intelligent than °°°?" Where °°° is a contextually understood threshold.

Maybe DNA is the threshold. A virus has genetic code but must have a host to reproduce. In a sense the host is simply its food, and all reproduction is ultimately based on obtaining "food." Maybe the threshold for intelligence is the ability to obtain food and reproduce, which is essentially the same definition for life.

I would say more any machine with a genetic core. It doesn't have to be DNA as there are intelligent systems now which are not biological at all.

The paradigm of function of the learning system of DNA though is observably less capable of thought that is not fundamentally locked to "Darwinian" behaviors.

You need behavioral graph interrelation, too, if you want to say "an individual" thinks rather than "the system of individuals, together, thinks".

 

[steve_bank]

I Stared a thread pon scince abiut asimple slime organism that functins as an eleentary neuron. It can learn andf rember by comfiguring itself.

The problem is what intelligence tends to be anthropomorphic. We gauge intelligence between humans an non humns based on what we do.

There is clever, intelligent, wise and other words.

Humans are clever, we created atomic bombs and threaten global dedtruction with them. Is that intelligent and wise?

The only meaningful idea is survival.

Many examples of non human problem solving and tool making, Non human cooperative action.

An intelligent designer who designed our reality was not very good at it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Humans are clever, we created atomic bombs and threaten global dedtruction with them. Is that intelligent and wise?

I think that bit of nuance will be lost on MrID. The details aren't very important. What matters is going out and making observations that allegedly support your particular religious idiocy and calling everything else "stupid."

 

[funinspace]

Clearly, ID must be true. The ToE cannot explain the existence of Minions, including that they don't seem to reproduce..

 

[Elixir]

What matters is going out and making observations that allegedly support your particular religious idiocy and calling everything else "stupid."

… and pimping a book. I wonder how that’s working

 

[Keith&Co.]

What matters is going out and making observations that allegedly support your particular religious idiocy and calling everything else "stupid."

… and pimping a book. I wonder how that’s working

One of the books, he claims it's been peer-reviewed...then quotes his rejection letters.