rationalskepticism.org

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...