changin' ur genes

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by gamelord, Jun 6, 2018.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,495
    You attempt to move the goalposts.

    This is what you said:
    You have. Multiple times - whether you deny it or not.


    And stop using the word if it isn't the word you mean. Look how much screen space has been wasted because you use words you don't mean and then have to backpeddle when called out.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    Post # where I use the single unqualified term "intelligent" ?
    I almost always accompany my posts with links to official research WHICH CONTAIN THE VERY SAME TERMS I AM USING IN MY MISSIVES.
    If you want to criticize the scientist, be my guest, but don't meekly accept what they say and then get on my case when I use the terms in the same context, on the pretext that I don't or can't visualize abstractions. That's dishonest.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,495

    I never claimed such.
    I said: if you use the word 'intelligent' in the same sentence as 'universe' then you are promoting ID.
    You did, and you are.

    OK, so the scientists you are following are also ID proponents.

    I never criticized the terms you used; I simply pointed out that you are promoting an ID agenda when you do so.

    Why so defensive?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    You just cannot accept a NO, can you? QUASI-INTELLIGENT DOES NOT EQUATE WITH INTELLIGENT! Check the definition of quasi, which I duly provided to avoid any confusion.

    I challenge you to present a logical proof of your above assertion.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2019
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,495
    All I need do is quote you. Your own words assert that the universe is "designed" by a quasi-"intelligence".

    You can dress it up any way you want - call it quasi- call it pseudo - you are still promoting Intelligent Design.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    Post # ? And you continue to put your own conclusion and words into my mouth. The universe does not design anything. It consists of "fields" from which self-ordering patterns emerge.
    No, because the term "quasi-intelligent" is the opposite of intelligent, it just looks intelligent, as per definition. Read the definition!
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2019
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,495
    Here it is, again, in your words:

    A quasi-intelligent universe that designed itself.

    Your words.
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    And for the third time, a sentence which I rescinded and replaced with
    Note that there is no mention of design of any kind. Please do not use that old hastily formulated sentence again.

    I apologized for it's original poor wording. I can do no more than that.

    So, here it is. A complete and total standstill in formulating a comprehensive perspective on how the potentials of the universe become explicated in physical reality, without any useful constructive contribution by you.

    I have asked you three times if you have a better short-hand description of how reality becomes manifest.

    Are you now going to hassle me that the term "manifest" means "the hand of God"?
    (it contains the word "mani")
    spookeee!
    For clarity;
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2019
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,495
    Why do you hold me responsible for contribution? It's your idea.

    It's in its initial stages, as is obvious from the constant rewording and problems with terminology.
    Would you rather it just be a manifesto, whole and complete without change? That's what blogs are for. This is a discussion forum.
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    I am making a contribution and I welcome critique. But if the critique is merely critical without offering a viable alternative perspective or better use of terms, then it just becomes burdensome.
    There has been ONE rewording and detailed explanation for the reasons. But you're making a mountain of a mole-hill with using dismissive terms like "constant rewording".

    But ok, if this is the pace you want to set, I'm patient . But I have made my case and anything else would be redundant. I'll just sit back and wait for a "constructive" response, or falsification of my position.

    I feel comfortable as my supporting links lead to experts in quantum mechanics . And no one can just glibly say that if these scientist use certain terms , they MUST be ID advocates, without actually listening to what they have to say and how they say it.
    That's not objective discussion. I call that pre-judicial.

    That kind of talk sould be reserved for scientists like Behe. He is the one advocating "irreducible complexity".
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2019
  14. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,058
    modern day false opinion by pandering to the narcissistic need to assign a sense of ego ownership to an external process.
    activity & involvement by assigning a "like" or "dislike" position instead of an actual opinion.
    it really is a burden on modern psycho-social evolution
    not that many if any comprehend it.
    it is quite the thing being normalised as a sense or moral right by the babyboomer generation to the early millennial late X-er's children.

    it is the perversion of science by assigning science as a self quantifier via big-data dog-whistles.

    the madding marketing executive reality asserting a need to self actualization by demanding the world change to meet their moral dilemmas while dictating culture.

    im totally over it

    not hanging dave out to dry(not making it personally about dave) on his own rusty hook(joking).
    but if the shoes fit then learn to walk in different shoes.
    shoes like culture & opinions must be changed if you wish to travel the long road.
    the culture normalization of grasping on to the favorite pair of shoes that dont support your arches and let the rain in and have holes and allow you to get blisters is not a justifiable excuse to try and use to justify sitting down and forcing the entire world to walk around you because you choose to sit in the middle of the path.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2019
    Write4U likes this.
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,495
    The alternative - of course- is the current standard model of the universe - one is not intelligently designed - quasi or otherwise.

    As you know perfectly well, the onus is not on others to falsify your ideas; the onus is on you to support your case. And, beyond your opinion (as you have frequently stated) and some references to ID-proponents, a case has not been made.

    Anyone can cherry-pick scientists.

    Einstein once said "Thank God I didn't spill my beer!" Can we quote him being a believer in God?


    You said they used the very terms you are using. If they're ascribing intelligence to the universe, then they are de facto ID proponents.

    I didn't dismiss their expertise, I simply pointed out that you're using them to forward an ID agenda.

    Not sure why that's stuck in your bonnet. You do believe the universe was [quasi]-intelligently designed. Have the courage of your convictions.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2019
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    My proposition is not in conflict with the standard model, that IS my point.
    I am not claiming a TOE.

    As I stated before, I am trying to find fundamental common denominators, such as universal constants, waves, electro-magnetism, and all the common denominators which make up the standard model.

    I am not arguing against the standard model, I am trying to make sense of the hierarchical nature of universal expressions from the very subtle to gross expressing in our physical reality.

    And that is precisely what you are doing here. Don't turn this around and accuse me of that. I am not advocating anything spiritual. In fact I have made it abundantly clear that my position rests on pure mathematical arguments.
    So you are declaring that Einstein was an ID proponent? He even declared that "God does not roll the dice". Clear evidence in your book that Einstein must have believed in DIVINE creationism.
    That is your assertion, not mine. Are you willing to back that up?
    So you keep insisting without a shred of validity to that analogy. But it is you who is making that argument, not I.
    Now I'm getting annoyed. You're pulling stuff out of thin air. You can do much better than that. So show me and don't keep avoiding the issue. Please do not posit falsehoods, it cheapens the entire conversation.

    For the last time, quote or cite a post # where I say this . You are beating a dead horse, get off that or apologize for "bearing false witness", to turn another biblical phrase.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2019
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    Well, you may want to do some reading on CDT (causal dynamical triangulation)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

    Are you telling me these people are advocating ID?
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,495
    No. You told me that.
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    I am quoting you!
    Yes, and you declared that therefore I believe in ID , because I am using these scientists as examples of being ID proponents? That is patently false.
    Take it back.
    Einstein?
    You are the one asserting that any scientist who even vaguely or tongue-in-cheek alludes to god or mechanics or self-assembly is by that fact an ID proponent. YOUR WORDS.
    You are accusing me of that aren't you?

    This is becoming utterly ridiculous. I'm talking to a ten year old.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2019
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,495
    The terms you were using were 'intelligent', 'universe' and 'designed'.

    These, in any combination, are hallmarks of ID.

    You cited scientists, who you claim use the same terms:

    To be clear: I wouldn't know if they are ID proponents or not; I simply granted your assertion that they are citing the same terms together - meaning they too are apparently promoting ID.

    I'm not making any assertions whatsoever here - I simply held up a mirror up to your assertion, and by your insistence, the assertions of those you cite.


    Something's got to give in your arguments. If you don't want to be seen as an advocate of an intelligently designed universe then stop using the terms 'intelligent', 'designed' and 'universe' in the same sentence.
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    I have not used the term intelligent anywhere without the qualifier that disqualifies it from the context you are taking it.
    Context, context.

    Is the Universe a mechanic? How did we get to "quantum mechanics"? Context!
    Is the Universe a self assembler? CDT talks about self-assembly. How did we get to that then? Context!
    Is the Universe a mathematician? How did Tegmark get to "mathematical universe". Context!
    Is a leaf a remarkable piece of natural technology. How did quantum biologist Michael Brooks get to that remarkable statement? Context!

    " There are subtle differences between intelligent behavior and intelligence itself".

    (narrow) Artificial Intelligence research mostly conflates the two, which is okay because there the goal is intelligent behavior.
    The differences must be taken into account when building Artificial General Intelligence and Artificial Consciousness though, because there the goal is intelligence
    . Context.

    Why is it that you refuse to use the qualifier "quasi"? Because you recognize that if you did use it, your argument against my proposition which does employ the prefix becomes fatally flawed for lack of Context!

    For the fifth time:
    "Please use only the term "quasi-intelligent self-referential system"when referring to my argument."

    But you keep quoting me falsely and out of context. It's dishonest, which IMO is worse than being unable to think in abstract terms.
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    Breakthrough! Let me assure you they are not promoting ID. They are using these terms in CONTEXT of quantum mechanics.

    Did Einstein appear to be promoting ID? (note; you brought up his name).

    And you are right , this is not a formal dissertation but an informal discussion. But then it is you who insists on a formal scientific dissertation. Duplicitous.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2019

Share This Page