Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

Hello and welcome to RatSkep! :smile: Why don't you introduce yourself here? ;)

Moderators: DarthHelmet86, campermon

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#141  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 13, 2016 10:43 am

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
ElDiablo wrote:
I'm not going to read your books. First make a sound case on this site, in the appropriate subforum.
You can actually REDISCOVER intelligence if you are not lazy. YOU DON'T have to read all my science books...

This video will help you and give you hints to DIY intelligence..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0rlMsHU_Ss

If your case is so simple, it should be no problem to present it on this site. I'm not going to watch your videos or read your books until you present your case here.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27208
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#142  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 13, 2016 10:44 am

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:I see he's still posting the contents of his discoursive rectal passage. As for his books, they're illiterate tripe. Frankly, I'd enjoy more success at trying to teach spinor calculus to my tropical fish, than trying to extract a meaningful and substantive response from him. I cite as evidence, this other trainwreck of a thread he launched.

A more in depth examination of his drivel can be perused in full here. Where he duly turned up and demonstrated yet again, that his discoursive abilities begin and end with spam-pasting the same cortical faecal matter over and over again, interspersed with episodes of self-aggrandisement and hyperbolic self-publicising of his purported "abilities", whilst providing zero actual substance to support the requisite assertions. His palsied and encephalitic display of fail in that thread included being unable (like every other creationist) to determine the difference between a rock shaped by mindless natural forces and a rock shaped by a human applying cognition to the task, and defining "intelligence" as failure to follow a simple instruction. I kid you not, you can read that thread and find out for yourselves. That's before we cover his elementary failure to understand probability, as understood by every competent mathematician on the planet.

To give an example of the level of fuckwittery he's presented, his drivel included the assertion that being asked to fetch a single paper clip, and upon receiving this request, fetching a truckload of them, constituted "intelligence". Yes, this is the level of stupidity on display here.

Even before we dwell upon his failure to understand the concept of parsimony as being a genuine indicator of intelligence, and his failure to understand the actual workings of the scientific paradigm, with respect to the maintenance or abandonment of working hypotheses, there's the little matter of his manifest inability to recognise that data processing is an essential part of any phenomenon that warrants the description "intelligent". But best of all, he also delivered another incarnation of the Dunsapy Bop, in which he was unable to tell the difference between the interactions between entities in an experiment, and the interactions of the experimenters in constructing and analysing the experiment. You can have fun looking at that piece of epic fail here.
Thank you for your post.

I think you are posting your "explanation" of intelligence without referring to the 70+ definitions of intelligence that is being published now in arxiv (LINK: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.3639.pdf).

Have you ever tried putting all those 70 definitions in a simple mathematical formula so that we could categorize a n

intelligence X

to

non-intelligence X?

If you could do it, you could probably come to the same conclusion with me. PLEASE, do science and use simple math and see if your knowledge on "intelligence" is really scientific and conforms to reality..

Do you want me to spoon feed you? I don't do it since I believe that you are also educated in school like me...

TRY it and see if you can...

This is still a convoluted deepity, no matter how many times you mindlessly regurgitate it.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27208
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#143  Postby Scot Dutchy » Mar 13, 2016 11:21 am

Why do these theists need more than one thread? It is just repetition. All his threads should be merged. I bet he will start a third one shortly.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 38062
Age: 68
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#144  Postby monkeyboy » Mar 13, 2016 11:33 am

If I do REDISCOVER intelligence..... will my posts turn into encephalitic word salad arse gravy too?
The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
Mark Twain
User avatar
monkeyboy
 
Posts: 5352
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#145  Postby Scot Dutchy » Mar 13, 2016 12:01 pm

monkeyboy wrote:If I do REDISCOVER intelligence..... will my posts turn into encephalitic word salad arse gravy too?


:smug:
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 38062
Age: 68
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#146  Postby SafeAsMilk » Mar 13, 2016 2:14 pm

Great stuff on the Smashwords page:

"...our decision (rejection) is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations." - SCIENCE Journal


This is the thread that keeps on giving. Only the OP would take a journal trying to let him down gently as somehow a promotion of his work :lol:
Yes, a mighty hot dog is our Lord!
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 10728
Age: 37
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#147  Postby Nicko » Mar 13, 2016 2:23 pm

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:This video will help you and give you hints to DIY intelligence..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0rlMsHU_Ss


Okay, I'll bite.

Three and a half minutes in, you're encouraging me to "Rediscover the new Intelligent Design". What the fuck dude? If it's "new", how the fuck can I "rediscover" it?

This is hardly your biggest problem, because you are already coming off like a conman. All this pointing into the camera and saying, "I want YOU to become a discoverer like me." and "Be a discoverer." This is not - in my experience - how an honest person approaches the task of sharing information with others. It is however - in my experience - exactly how a conman attempts to sell some snake oil.

But none of these criticisms I've made are substantive. That would be impossible: you've presented no substance. But to be charitable, English is not your first - maybe not even your second - language, and you might just coincidentally possess the speech patterns and mannerisms of an incompetent conman despite being an honest person. Perhaps.

Next comes a bit where you start well. "My discoveries ..." you say, and I think for a second that you're getting to the point. But no, you're just pointing out that you've written some books that are available on Amazon. So have any number of liars and lunatics, so that's hardly support for your claim. Come to think about it, I still don't know what your claim really is. What the fuck do you mean, you've (re?)discovered "real and universal intelligence"? So far, no hint; just your assertions that you have discovered this - so far undefined - thing and your endlessly repeated assurances that I can too.

But next, you assure me that there's "no problem" if I don't want to read your books, that you are going to give me a "hint" as to how I might discover this - still undefined - thing you claim to have discovered for myself. Again, this is not a good thing. When I am trying to tell someone something of any importance whatsoever, I don't give out "hints"; I fucking tell them. I give out "hints" when I'm playing fucking games.

But now you have, "real science has evidence" on the screen and you say, "The reason I am so confident I am right ..." and I think, "Well, this is it. He's got to follow that with something substantive." But no, you start waffling on about your books again. You again assert you have reasons, without actually saying what the fuck they are.

And now you start in on, "What is evidence?" Not a good sign, cobber. You've got it backwards. Present your evidence, then defend it's validity - if such a defence is necessary. It looks rather like you anticipate your audience rejecting your so-called "evidence". Assuming you ever get around to even attempting to supply any, that is.

Around the halfway mark, you again promise something. "I'm going to give you a direct empirical evidence that you are going to do it every day until you ... pass away."

Okay, already!

Give it to me!

I'm ready!

Here we go!

"The new Intelligent Design that I've discovered, it has the most obvious empirical evidence." This is a problem for you, since it implies either:

a) You are the only person with any functional level of intelligence whatsoever to have considered questions of cosmology, ever.

OR

b) You are full of shit.

Guess which option I'm leaning towards at this time, given we are more than half-way through the video and you haven't even defined your terms?

And now, instead of backing up the outrageous claim you just made - that is, providing the empirical evidence you claim is so "obvious" - you're back spruiking your fucking book! I get it, mate. You've written books. Good for you. Now where's this evidence?

But now you are just repeating the same shit you said in your intro. I'm probably shaking my head (wrong, I'm pounding it into my desk). I'm probably saying that it's "not science" (well, it seems pretty likely given your performance thus far). You're going to give me a "hint" (it's taken you long enough).

So here goes.

Eight and a quarter minutes in and I'm about to get a "hint". Lucky me.

But not before you mention that your book contains the results of an "experiment" wherein you drop a egg on some tissue paper. What hypothesis this was supposed to test, what hypothesis the results suggest, you don't say, but we are now nine minutes into a fourteen minute video and you are about to present, "Challenge/hint number one".

Hint #1:

When you eat/drink because you are hungry/thirsty, do you use intelligence?

Well, that would depend on what you mean by "intelligence". We're nearly at the ten minute mark now and you have yet to define that. And now you're raving like a lunatic ( having answered "no") about how mindblowing the realisation I'm about to have is going to be.

Oh, the suspense.

So now you repeat yourself, again, then assert that from the "fact" that eating/drinking when hungry/thirsty does not require intelligence - a "fact" that you never established, you have yet to define "intelligence" - that from this one can derive "this one", gesturing towards the whiteboard behind you. What you mean by "this one" is unclear. Do you mean "intelligence"? The definition of "intelligence"? Do you mean "real and universal intelligence", or the definition of that?

I dunno what the fuck you're on about, but you've moved on to:

More repetition.

But next you've moved on to:

Hint #2:

"What is the universal principle of making X?"

The fuck?

Okay, what is the "universal principle of making X"?

You can't say, apparently. I mean, it's a "universal principle" and all. It would seem to be an important thing to tell people. But it's not forthcoming. You just rave on for a bit about mountains, spruik your books again, and wish us all a good day.

Excuse me?

In my time on this forum, I have witnessed many an interloper offer up - metaphorically speaking - a salad roll as if it were a burger. I've even seen a few offer up a plain bread roll as if it were an upsized burger combo. But rarely have I seen someone offer up fucking nothing whatsoever as if it were a three-course meal at a Michellin-starred restaurant.

You deserve points for chutzpah, if nothing else.

As for your "theories", there's just nothing there. Rarely has the despairing criticism of Wolfgang Pauli been so apposite:

"That's not even wrong."
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8605
Age: 41
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#148  Postby Calilasseia » Mar 13, 2016 5:06 pm

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:I see he's still posting the contents of his discoursive rectal passage. As for his books, they're illiterate tripe. Frankly, I'd enjoy more success at trying to teach spinor calculus to my tropical fish, than trying to extract a meaningful and substantive response from him. I cite as evidence, this other trainwreck of a thread he launched.

A more in depth examination of his drivel can be perused in full here. Where he duly turned up and demonstrated yet again, that his discoursive abilities begin and end with spam-pasting the same cortical faecal matter over and over again, interspersed with episodes of self-aggrandisement and hyperbolic self-publicising of his purported "abilities", whilst providing zero actual substance to support the requisite assertions. His palsied and encephalitic display of fail in that thread included being unable (like every other creationist) to determine the difference between a rock shaped by mindless natural forces and a rock shaped by a human applying cognition to the task, and defining "intelligence" as failure to follow a simple instruction. I kid you not, you can read that thread and find out for yourselves. That's before we cover his elementary failure to understand probability, as understood by every competent mathematician on the planet.

To give an example of the level of fuckwittery he's presented, his drivel included the assertion that being asked to fetch a single paper clip, and upon receiving this request, fetching a truckload of them, constituted "intelligence". Yes, this is the level of stupidity on display here.

Even before we dwell upon his failure to understand the concept of parsimony as being a genuine indicator of intelligence, and his failure to understand the actual workings of the scientific paradigm, with respect to the maintenance or abandonment of working hypotheses, there's the little matter of his manifest inability to recognise that data processing is an essential part of any phenomenon that warrants the description "intelligent". But best of all, he also delivered another incarnation of the Dunsapy Bop, in which he was unable to tell the difference between the interactions between entities in an experiment, and the interactions of the experimenters in constructing and analysing the experiment. You can have fun looking at that piece of epic fail here.
Thank you for your post.

I think you are posting your "explanation" of intelligence without referring to the 70+ definitions of intelligence that is being published now in arxiv (LINK: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.3639.pdf).


From that paper, we have definition 19 from the list derived from psychologists, viz:

19. “. . . the resultant of the process of acquiring, storing in memory, retrieving, combining, comparing, and using in new contexts information and conceptual skills.” Humphreys


What that cited author described above was data processing. Or did you not bother actually reading the paper in question?

Likewise, definition 10 from AI researchers, is listed thus:

10. “Intelligence is the computational part of the ability to achieve goals in the world. Varying kinds and degrees of intelligence occur in people, many animals and some machines.” J. McCarthy [25]


Again, this describes data processing.

While we're at it, you might like to ask yourself, how it is that the programmers at Google were able to develop AlphaGo, a program that has now beaten the world's best Go player at a game requiring intelligence (however that may be defined) to play successfully, whilst not once referencing any of your drivel?

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Have you ever tried putting all those 70 definitions in a simple mathematical formula so that we could categorize a n

intelligence X

to

non-intelligence X?


What part of "this is an area of active research in the world of real science" do you not understand? None of which lends any credence to the illiterate drivel you're posting here?

And what part of the words "data processing" do you also not understand?

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:If you could do it, you could probably come to the same conclusion with me.


Poppycock. First of all, your fatuous idea that bringing a ton of paperclips into an office when one is requested, purportedly constitutes "intelligence", is so risible as to be beneath deserving of a point of view. That's before we factor in your failure to understand elementary probability.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:PLEASE, do science and use simple math


Ahem, if "simple math" was all that was required to unlock the secrets of intelligence, this would have been done long ago. It's precisely because even defining intelligence in a rigorous manner is difficult, let alone instantiating intelligent processing on an alternative substrate to a human brain, that this hasn't been done. Or did this elementary concept elude you, whilst you were pretending that your illiterate hologram of the imagination constituted some priceless artefact of genius?

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:and see if your knowledge on "intelligence" is really scientific and conforms to reality..


Yours certainly doesn't. So before you posture as being in a position to lecture me on proper scientific conduct, I suggest you learn to do this yourself.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Do you want me to spoon feed you?


Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

If you think you're in a position to "spoon feed" me on anything, then I respectfully suggest that this constitutes a clinically significant delusion on your part. You can't even demonstrate an elementary understanding of probability.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:I don't do it since I believe that you are also educated in school like me...


I'd ask your teachers for your money back. They manifestly failed in your case.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:TRY it and see if you can...


Heh, there's nothing I'd love better than to secure a grant for AI research. But if I did, I wouldn't be referencing any of your drivel. Not least because I'm aware of the intricacies of data processing, courtesy of years spent in software development. During which I learned the hard lesson, that merely having access to a given set of data isn't enough, what is needed is the ability to process that data, and derive new inferences from that data. Something which, lo and behold, another piece of software, in the form of the Isabelle theorem prover, happens to be capable of doing. You can learn more about Isabelle here.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 21081
Age: 55
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#149  Postby Calilasseia » Mar 13, 2016 5:35 pm

Meanwhile, back in this earlier post addressing your drivel, where you asserted blindly that intelligence purportedly constituted multiple solutions for a single problem, I gave a concrete example of a physical system, whose defining equation of behaviour was accompanied by an infinite number of solutions, despite the physical system itself being utterly mindless. Namely, a simple harmonic oscillator, such as a mass attached to a spring moving up and down under the influence of gravity. Such a system is modelled by a second order differential equation, of the form:

A d2x/dt2 + B dx/dt + Cx = 0

where x is the displacement of the mass from a central point in space, and t is time.

This equation admits of an infinite number of solutions. In the example I provided, setting the constants above to A=1, B=0 and C=4, yields a particular instance of the above differential equation, namely:

d2x/dt2 + 4x = 0

This equation has the general solution x = K cos 2t + M sin 2t, where K and M are any arbitrary constants. Which means that even for this particular instance of the differential equation, with the constants A, B and C fixed, there still exists an infinity of solutions. Does that mean that the equation is "intelligent"? Or the mass going "boing boing" up and down on the spring is "intelligent"?

Only if you assert that this is not the case here, then you're flatly contradicting your earlier assertion, about many solutions to one problem constituting your fatuous "intellen".

Do provide a substantive answer to this, instead of merely copy-pasting more masturbating of your ego.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 21081
Age: 55
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#150  Postby MrIntelligentDesign » Mar 14, 2016 2:23 am

Calilasseia wrote:
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:I see he's still posting the contents of his discoursive rectal passage. As for his books, they're illiterate tripe. Frankly, I'd enjoy more success mething which, lo and behold, another piece of software, in the form of the Isabelle theorem prover, happens to be capable of doing. You can learn more about Isabelle here.
Thank you for your response.

But you are really confuse. SO CONFUSE that you have no science at all.

You are always using the term intelligence and yet you don't know what it is.

In the link that I've given you, there are 70 definitions of intelligence. Which definition do you think is the real one and universal? Can I use that definition (the you had concluded as science) in the origin of particles, or life or my PC or my bike or my car or the earth? ONE DEFINITION to cover all X in the topic of intelligence..

YOU DON'T have any clue on intelligence and you had claimed that is was difficult. Of course, it would be very difficult, yes, since you are talking intelligence when you should be talking non-intelligence!

You are simply talking non-intelligence when you talk intelligence based on the stupidity of ToE.

Thus, once again...READ my link to you about the 70 definitions of intelligence and use simple math to categorize which X is intelligence and which X is non-intelligence.

I cannot spoon feed you..I think that you are smart since you are against me..

Now, can you do it?? USE the power of ToE on its 160 years of existence and see if you can. IF not, I will conclude that you are not honest person...
User avatar
MrIntelligentDesign
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 117

Philippines (ph)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#151  Postby MrIntelligentDesign » Mar 14, 2016 2:38 am

Calilasseia wrote:Meanwhile, back in this earlier post addressing your drivel, where you asserted blindly that intelligence purportedly constituted multiple solutions for a single problem, I gave a concrete example of a physical system, whose defining equation of behaviour was accompanied by an infinite number of solutions, despite the physical system itself being utterly mindless. Namely, a simple harmonic oscillator, such as a mass attached to a spring moving up and down under the influence of gravity. Such a system is modelled by a second order differential equation, of the form:

A d2x/dt2 + B dx/dt + Cx = 0

where x is the displacement of the mass from a central point in space, and t is time.

This equation admits of an infinite number of solutions. In the example I provided, setting the constants above to A=1, B=0 and C=4, yields a particular instance of the above differential equation, namely:

d2x/dt2 + 4x = 0

This equation has the general solution x = K cos 2t + M sin 2t, where K and M are any arbitrary constants. Which means that even for this particular instance of the differential equation, with the constants A, B and C fixed, there still exists an infinity of solutions. Does that mean that the equation is "intelligent"? Or the mass going "boing boing" up and down on the spring is "intelligent"?

Only if you assert that this is not the case here, then you're flatly contradicting your earlier assertion, about many solutions to one problem constituting your fatuous "intellen".

Do provide a substantive answer to this, instead of merely copy-pasting more masturbating of your ego.
Thank you again for the response.

YES, intelligence has always a pattern and I've shown it in my science books and I think I've shared them here. And this pattern is always universal that you can use it anywhere in entire existence.

I think that you did not read my science book that is why you are SO confused.

In my science book titled "The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down", I discussed in the last chapter/section on HOW TO INTELLIGENCE. And I've already given the readers the correct applications of the universal intelligence in the real world.

In your example, you are assuming that

A d2x/dt2 + B dx/dt + Cx = 0

is intelligence...

NO! IT is not...

That equation is simply an X or simply an existence in my terminology. Existence is nothing but existence, thus, it has always a value of one (existence divided by existence is always one). And one is always natural phenomenon or naturen.

BUT,

when your teacher in Calculus uses that X = equation as a a problem P for student, then...

student A must solve that problem P...

If that student A solve that problem P with one solution (P')...that student A is simply a naturen..

But if another student B solved that same equation with two or more solutions (P' + P'), that student B is said to be intelligence...or intellen...

BUT, if one student C had solved that same equation as problem P with three or more solutions (P' + P' + P' +...)...then, to student C, that problem P is very important to that student C...

That is how you explain reality..

IT IS SO SIMPLE and yet so profound and so clear...that is why YOU MUST STUDY my discoveries or you will never know about reality...
User avatar
MrIntelligentDesign
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 117

Philippines (ph)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#152  Postby ElDiablo » Mar 14, 2016 2:51 am

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
That is how you explain reality..

IT IS SO SIMPLE and yet so profound and so clear...that is why YOU MUST STUDY my discoveries or you will never know about reality...


He has the earnest of a child explaining the reality of Santa Claus.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3061

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#153  Postby SafeAsMilk » Mar 14, 2016 3:27 am

Yes. "Santa Claus is simply Santa Claus! Santa Claus divided by Santa Claus is 1. It's so simple and so profound and clear!"
Yes, a mighty hot dog is our Lord!
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 10728
Age: 37
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#154  Postby MrIntelligentDesign » Mar 14, 2016 3:47 am

ElDiablo wrote:
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
That is how you explain reality..

IT IS SO SIMPLE and yet so profound and so clear...that is why YOU MUST STUDY my discoveries or you will never know about reality...


He has the earnest of a child explaining the reality of Santa Claus.
You are really a deluded, religious FREAK!
You have no science at all!
User avatar
MrIntelligentDesign
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 117

Philippines (ph)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#155  Postby MrIntelligentDesign » Mar 14, 2016 3:47 am

SafeAsMilk wrote:Yes. "Santa Claus is simply Santa Claus! Santa Claus divided by Santa Claus is 1. It's so simple and so profound and clear!"

LOL!!!

YOU REALLY LIKE FANTASY! LOL!

You are really a deluded, religious FREAK!
You have no science at all!
User avatar
MrIntelligentDesign
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 117

Philippines (ph)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#156  Postby Calilasseia » Mar 14, 2016 3:54 am

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:I see he's still posting the contents of his discoursive rectal passage. As for his books, they're illiterate tripe. Frankly, I'd enjoy more success mething which, lo and behold, another piece of software, in the form of the Isabelle theorem prover, happens to be capable of doing. You can learn more about Isabelle here.
Thank you for your response.

But you are really confuse.


Wrong. But then you;ve been wrong about everything else here thus far.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:SO CONFUSE that you have no science at all.


Bollocks. I paid attention in classes that were presented by people who actually knew their subjects. As a corollary, I'm in an ideal position to recognise that your bullshit is precisely that.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:You are always using the term intelligence and yet you don't know what it is.


Excuse me, what part of the words "data processing" do you still not understand? Which is a necessary, though not sufficient, as computers inform us, requirement for any process to which the label "intelligence" can properly be applied?

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:In the link that I've given you, there are 70 definitions of intelligence.


Yes, you keep boring us all with your repeated spam on this. What part of "that paper was a technical discussion paper, intended to highlight the issues" do you also not understand? A paper which did not present any of those definitions as the final word on the subject, as you would have known if you had actually bothered to read it, and which was simply a preamble leading up to an announcement about the authors' own researches, which they explicitly stated were covered in a separate paper?

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Which definition do you think is the real one and universal?


Like the authors of that paper, I recognise that a precise and rigorous definition of intelligence is difficult to achieve, as I've already told you, if you had bothered to pay attention. Consequently, like the authors of that paper, I recognise that those attempts at definitions, which is what they really are, are themselves incomplete. Because they focus upon particular aspects of the phenomenon that is of interest to the authors thereof. Which means I already understand more about this paper than you manifestly do, and consequently, your assertion about be being purportedly "confused" (please learn the difference between a present tense verb and a present participle, it does help) is null and void.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Can I use that definition (the you had concluded as science) in the origin of particles, or life or my PC or my bike or my car or the earth?


Well if you had bothered to pay attention once more, I simply presented data processing as a necessary component of intelligence. I didn't present it as a sufficient one. But I'm used to people like you not bothering to pay attention to the actual content of my posts, preferring instead their own caricatures thereof.

As for the origin of particles, this doesn't require intelligence at all. It simply requires consistent laws of physics to exist. Your confusion with respect to this immediately invalidates your posturing as being in a position to lecture me on the relevant topics. Likewise, the DATA tells us that life didn't need intelligence to bring it about, merely consistently operating laws of chemistry. Likewise, Planet Earth didn't need intelligence for its formation, merely yet more consistently operating laws of physics. Do learn some real science here, instead of your pretend caricature thereof.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:ONE DEFINITION to cover all X in the topic of intelligence.


Except that, oh wait, intelligence isn't required for vast classes of entities and phenomena, merely the existence of consistently operating laws of physics. Unless you want to assert, of course, that a rock falling down a hill needs "intelligence" for this, at which point everyone here will point and laugh at your drivel.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:YOU DON'T have any clue on intelligence


The only one manifestly exhibiting cluelessness here is you. Because, as I've just pointed out, intelligence is not needed for vast classes of entities and phenomena, merely consistently operating laws of physics. If this notion is too difficult for you to understand, then you're in no position to cast aspersions upon my understanding, let alone engage in hyperbolic self-aggrandisement and inflated assertions about your purported (and wholly non-existent) "genius".

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:and you had claimed that is was difficult.


So the fact that some of the world's best researchers have been labouring hard for decades on this topic, and despite the difficulties, have still contributed more genuine substantive knowledge to the field, than you will ever be capable of, is another of those inconvenient facts you're going to pretend doesn't exist?

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Of course, it would be very difficult, yes, since you are talking intelligence when you should be talking non-intelligence!


There's ample display of non-intelligence in your drivel.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:You are simply talking non-intelligence when you talk intelligence based on the stupidity of ToE.


Oh wait, this is a theory that enjoys evidential support by the supertanker load, unlike your made up shit. Therefore I'll conclude that your made up shit is the real stupidity here.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Thus, once again...READ my link to you about the 70 definitions of intelligence


I did, and came away with more understanding in 15 minutes than you've exhibited throughout your tedious posting career here.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:and use simple math to categorize which X is intelligence and which X is non-intelligence.


Except that every genuine researcher in the field has understood for decades, that a proper understanding of intelligence is going to require more than your tiresome and fatuous demands for "simple math". Or did you not bother reading the details about Isabelle I supplied?

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:I cannot spoon feed you..I think that you are smart since you are against me..


My tropical fish exhibit more intelligence than your posts.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Now, can you do it?? USE the power of ToE on its 160 years of existence and see if you can.


To do what? Oh wait, the actual remit of the theory, which you would have known if you had bothered to pay attention in class, is to provide an explanation for observed biodiversity, a task at which it succeeds royally. Or don't you understand the elementary concept of different theories to cover different classes of phenomena? Only in case you hadn't worked this out, asking for a theory of biodiversity to provide an answer outside its remit, on the nature of intelligent data processing, is like asking for an answer to acid-base reaction kinetics using gravity. What part of "they are completely different topics" do you not understand?

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:IF not, I will conclude that you are not honest person...


I've just given you an honest answer, based upon real knowledge of the actual subjects at hand that you manifestly do not possess. Would you expect someone to use insect biology to explain nuclear fusion? If not, you'll understand why I've answered as I have.

Moving on ...

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Meanwhile, back in this earlier post addressing your drivel, where you asserted blindly that intelligence purportedly constituted multiple solutions for a single problem, I gave a concrete example of a physical system, whose defining equation of behaviour was accompanied by an infinite number of solutions, despite the physical system itself being utterly mindless. Namely, a simple harmonic oscillator, such as a mass attached to a spring moving up and down under the influence of gravity. Such a system is modelled by a second order differential equation, of the form:

A d2x/dt2 + B dx/dt + Cx = 0

where x is the displacement of the mass from a central point in space, and t is time.

This equation admits of an infinite number of solutions. In the example I provided, setting the constants above to A=1, B=0 and C=4, yields a particular instance of the above differential equation, namely:

d2x/dt2 + 4x = 0

This equation has the general solution x = K cos 2t + M sin 2t, where K and M are any arbitrary constants. Which means that even for this particular instance of the differential equation, with the constants A, B and C fixed, there still exists an infinity of solutions. Does that mean that the equation is "intelligent"? Or the mass going "boing boing" up and down on the spring is "intelligent"?

Only if you assert that this is not the case here, then you're flatly contradicting your earlier assertion, about many solutions to one problem constituting your fatuous "intellen".

Do provide a substantive answer to this, instead of merely copy-pasting more masturbating of your ego.


Thank you again for the response.


Spare me the synthetic ingratiation.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:YES, intelligence has always a pattern


Really? Hmm, this is going to be interesting. Tell me, is there a "pattern" in this?

MCA_41_41_5_Gen_0_Cropped.jpg
MCA_41_41_5_Gen_0_Cropped.jpg (378.13 KiB) Viewed 771 times


Only this has a significant bearing on what is to come.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:and I've shown it in my science books


Correction, you've blindly asserted this in your vanity publications.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:and I think I've shared them here.


Oh really? Once again, is there a "pattern" in the above image?

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:And this pattern is always universal that you can use it anywhere in entire existence.


Ah, we're back to the distinction between using intelligent thought to analyse one's surroundings, and asserting that mindless processes are purportedly "intelligent" because one doesn't understand them. The failure to understand this distinction being the cause of your hilarious excursion into the world of the Dunsapy Bop I covered earlier, named after another creationist who manifestly didn't understand the elementary concepts involved.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:I think that you did not read my science book that is why you are SO confused.


Bullshit. I've just demonstrated in the immediately preceding two sentences, that I manifestly understand more here than you.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:In my science book titled "The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down", I discussed in the last chapter/section on HOW TO INTELLIGENCE.


Oh, you mean that nonsense about delivering a ton of paper clips when asked for just one? :rofl: :lol: :dielaughing:

Please, you should take this to Comedy Central.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:And I've already given the readers the correct applications of the universal intelligence in the real world.


HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Delivering a ton of paper clips when asked for just one constitutes "how to intelligence [sic]"?

You're a comedy goldmine.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:In your example, you are assuming that

A d2x/dt2 + B dx/dt + Cx = 0

is intelligence...


No I'm not. I didn't present any assumptions, instead, I asked you to tell me whether or not you thought this system was "intelligent". I never presented any assertions about that equation, other than the fact that said equation possesses an infinite number of possible solutions. Do pay attention to the words I actually presented here.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:NO! IT is not...


Oh, so that means you're flatly contradicting your earlier assertion, from this previous post of yours, that one problem having many solutions equals "intelligence"? Because that equation has an infinite number of solutions, and according to your previous assertion, should be "infinitely intelligent" as a consequence.

Ah, now we're seeing your drivel unravel as I thought it would.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:That equation is simply an X or simply an existence in my terminology.


So the fact that it describes the behaviour of a physical system is another of those inconvenient pieces of DATA that I supplied, that you're going to ignore?

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Existence is nothing but existence, thus, it has always a value of one (existence divided by existence is always one). And one is always natural phenomenon or naturen.


What, despite the existence of an infinite number of solutions to that equation? Which according to your earlier assertion, constituted your fatuous "intellen"?

I love it when people like you make it this easy for me.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:BUT,


Ooh, a "but". Oh this is going to be fun. A desperate attempt to wriggle out of self-contradiction on your part looms on the horizon ...

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:when your teacher in Calculus uses that X = equation as a a problem P for student, then...

student A must solve that problem P...

If that student A solve that problem P with one solution (P')...that student A is simply a naturen..


HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Oh wait, I provided just one equation representing the solution to a particular example. But, that one equation contained within it arbitrary constants, that can take any of an infinite number of values. Which means that the one equation stands for an infinity of solutions.

Hmm, looks like your drivel is unravelling even faster at this point.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:But if another student B solved that same equation with two or more solutions (P' + P'), that student B is said to be intelligence...or intellen...


So the fact that I have been able to point out that once again, one equation can represent an infinite number of solutions, and thereby makes a mockery of your assertions, is something else you're going to ignore?

Looks like Game Over.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:BUT, if one student C had solved that same equation as problem P with three or more solutions (P' + P' + P' +...)...then, to student C, that problem P is very important to that student C...


So fucking what? I've just stated that the equation has an infinite number of solutions, which are ALL encapsulated by a single closed form equation. Or didn't you study these in your classes?

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:That is how you explain reality..


No it isn't. I've just made a complete mockery of your assertions here, by demonstrating that it's possible for one equation to possess an infinite number of solutions, all capable of being encapsulated by yet another single closed form equation, and that as a result, your fatuous attempt to use a hilariously naive distinction between singular and plural as a purported marker of "intelligence", is nothing more than a brainfart on your part.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:IT IS SO SIMPLE and yet so profound and so clear


No it isn't "profound", it's fucking excrement.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:..that is why YOU MUST STUDY my discoveries or you will never know about reality...


Please, take your bullshit and your self-aggrandisement, and shove them. Because all you're offering here is made up shit of such a palsied, spastic level, as to make my tropical fish wet themselves laughing at the inanity of your offerings. There are single celled life forms that perform better than you on the data processing front.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 21081
Age: 55
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#157  Postby MrIntelligentDesign » Mar 14, 2016 4:12 am

Calilasseia wrote:
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:

Please, take your bullshit and your self-aggrandisement, and shove them. Because all you're offering here is made up shit of such a palsied, spastic level, as to make my tropical fish wet themselves laughing at the inanity of your offerings. There are single celled life forms that perform better than you on the data processing front.
YOU ARE REALLY CONFUSED!

Your confusion is soooooo deep that your intellectual mind had made you lazy in rediscovering the real and universal intelligence.

THESE ARE the things that we AGREED:

1. Intelligence is a very difficult topic.
Yes, I agreed. The proof for this was that we have probably 80+ definitions of intelligence, which means, no one had ever nailed intelligence..but I've already nailed intelligence and one definition and explanation is enough to summarize all definitions of intelligence that our best thinkers had incorrectly invented.

The cause for this was the stupidity of ToE. As long as you cling to ToE and not science, you will never understand the real intelligence and you cannot nail intelligence for the res of your life..MARK MY WORD for that...

2. Science has always an experiment and has always an empirical test or experiment.
I agreed on this things but even though you agree on this things, you are negating and not following this method. Instead of making experiment for yourself if all of the 70 definitions of intelligence are real intelligence, you mocked me.
Your mockery only tells me that YOU HAVE NO CLUE on the real intelligence. You are hopeless and pitiful..I don't know what should I do with you. But I hope that you could reset your intellectual and scientific mind and do what I've done when I discovered the real intelligence.
User avatar
MrIntelligentDesign
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 117

Philippines (ph)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#158  Postby SafeAsMilk » Mar 14, 2016 4:20 am

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:Yes. "Santa Claus is simply Santa Claus! Santa Claus divided by Santa Claus is 1. It's so simple and so profound and clear!"

LOL!!!

YOU REALLY LIKE FANTASY! LOL!

You are really a deluded, religious FREAK!
You have no science at all!

Looks like the implosion has finally begun :lol: I think it's interesting that you've brought religion into this.

Here's a quick English lesson for you: science isn't a thing that you can have. I hope you can understand that, because then at least one of us will have learned something useful.
Yes, a mighty hot dog is our Lord!
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 10728
Age: 37
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#159  Postby Calilasseia » Mar 14, 2016 4:42 am

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:


YOU ARE REALLY CONFUSED!


Yet apparently needed me to teach you to spell the word correctly.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Your confusion is soooooo deep that your intellectual mind had made you lazy in rediscovering the real and universal intelligence.


Oh please, spare us all the bullshit and the blatant masturbating of your ego, which is all you've had to offer ever since you arrived here.

What part of "I've just exposed a fatal self-contradiction on your part" do you not understand?

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:THESE ARE the things that we AGREED:


Let's see how much you've paid attention here shall we?

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:1. Intelligence is a very difficult topic.


Yet one you assert, perversely, is capable of being encapsulated by "simple math". Last time I checked, "simple math" didn't cut it with genuinely difficult topics. Se, for example, the Navier-Stokes equations.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Yes, I agreed. The proof for this was that we have probably 80+ definitions of intelligence, which means, no one had ever nailed intelligence..


Including you.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:but I've already nailed intelligence


No you haven't, you're just pretending that your infantile brainfart on the subject constitutes Einstein-level genius. It's why everyone else in the thread is pointing and laughing at your drivel.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:and one definition and explanation is enough to summarize all definitions of intelligence that our best thinkers had incorrectly invented.


Wrong. Because your "definition" is complete and utter horseshit. If you think bringing a ton of paperclips into the office when asked to bring one equals "intelligence", then I have to ask what an advanced nation like Japan was doing when they let you in. Or did they hire you to dress up as Jigglypuff in the Pokemon circus? Though I wouldn't even trust you to do that without trained adult supervision, on the basis of the palsied, encephalitic cortical gangrene you've served up here.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:The cause for this was the stupidity of ToE.


Bollocks. Evolutionary theory had nothing to do with my ability to recognise the product of a diseased mind when I see it, I possessed this ability a good few years before I learned about evolutionary theory. I was able to tell made up shit from fact at six years of age, a skill you apparently never acquired even in adulthood.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:As long as you cling to ToE and not science


Evolutionary theory is science, and no amount of posting spam in the manner of a petulant toddler will change this. All you're succeeding in doing here, is making a global audience look at your posts, and think to themselves that they're the product of drugs or brain injury.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:you will never understand the real intelligence


I can recognise its antithesis, just by looking at your posts.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:and you cannot nail intelligence for the res of your life..MARK MY WORD for that...


Yawn. I bet you've said the same words to the AlphaGo programmers.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:2. Science has always an experiment and has always an empirical test or experiment.
I agreed on this things but even though you agree on this things, you are negating and not following this method.


Except that I'm not obliged to do anything other than point and laugh at your assertions, and remind everyone of the increasingly large body of verifiable facts that you manifestly know nothing about. I'm not obliged to jump through hoops just because some random self-aggrandising stranger on the Internet wants to buff his ego. Furthermore, since I've pointed out that you've contradicted yourself on a grand scale here, you're in no position to give orders to anyone, not even the forum cat.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Instead of making experiment for yourself if all of the 70 definitions of intelligence are real intelligence, you mocked me.


This might be because mockery is all that your drivel deserves.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Your mockery only tells me that YOU HAVE NO CLUE on the real intelligence.


Data processing, anyone? Hmm, do you even know what the words mean?

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:You are hopeless and pitiful..I don't know what should I do with you.


Ha ha ha ha ha ... given that you demonstrated that you hadn't a clue about the most elementary fundamentals of probability, I think the rest of the readers of this thread will judge for themselves who is genuinely "hopeless and pitiful" here.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:But I hope that you could reset your intellectual and scientific mind and do what I've done when I discovered the real intelligence.


And how many lifetimes are we going to have to wait for that to happen? Only your crap about paperclips is horseshit.

Oh, and I'll remind everyone here that you failed the same test every other creationist has failed here, namely telling the difference between a rock shaped by natural erosion, and a rock shaped by a prehistoric human as a tool. Though many here will be thinking of the word "tool" in other contexts after reading your output.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 21081
Age: 55
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#160  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 14, 2016 6:28 am

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:I see he's still posting the contents of his discoursive rectal passage. As for his books, they're illiterate tripe. Frankly, I'd enjoy more success mething which, lo and behold, another piece of software, in the form of the Isabelle theorem prover, happens to be capable of doing. You can learn more about Isabelle here.
Thank you for your response.

But you are really confuse. SO CONFUSE that you have no science at all.

Says the person who consistently fails to present any science and can't even manage basic English.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:You are always using the term intelligence and yet you don't know what it is.

Stop making shit up about your interlocutors.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27208
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Welcome New Members

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest