rationalskepticism.org

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?



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?

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.