Discontinuing research about ID

Amusing. I explain why below... Hilarious. Your paper does not support ID. If you have removed the sections which claim that your work supports ID, there is very little chance that anyone will detect such an intention. Your statement is an admission that you are a coward. Didn't your mom ever tell you about sticks, stones, and name calling? The accusation is that you have ignored some particular non-random and conscious human input. Your statement indicates that you still don't get it. Your description of your new paper is amusing because you make the same error again. I am curious to hear whether your new peer reviewers can find the error. So now you are Galileo? You are rocking the house, bro!http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

quote:

---

The Crackpot Index

​

John Baez

​

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

​

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

---

By who? Is this the new paper: About quantising unconscious decision processes and their origin. It's dated 3/31/2014, over a year ago. The first paper you gave us was dated this year, 4/3/2015. I see you also removed mention of the triune God from the title and from the body of the paper. The paper appears very similar to the original.I've also found a copy of what looks like a very similar paper by you and your co-author here: About quantising unconscious decision processes and their origin and proving Intelligent Design. It's also from last year, dated 4/6/2014. By the way, who is your co-author Sergii Koliada and why isn't he here? These concerns have no foundation. No one would do that and objectivity demands that they wouldn't listen anyway. Who accepted it for peer review?

So, are you done here?*You stopped replying to me but you've mentioned my name, I think, twice now since then.As I said in the just previous reply that I posted to this website:(new members should consider the fact that I can set it so that I get an email when you actually hit the reply button on a message of mine, and you should realize that it's different than using the General Reply button in ways that help us all as users)*Did you get an email for this reply?You're using the General Reply button, so I don't get said email. And you're also grouping multiple replies into one message. That breaks the chain, or "thread", that links our messages back trough each other that others can use to go back through the conversation. They do that to get a better sense of the context of the quotes of each other's that we're using.That just helps with "flow".Anyways, here's where you left me in my argument, I still don't see how I could be wrong. From Message 207:

quote:

---

Your criteria for your pattern is a hodgepodge of arbitrary observations for a portion of the episodes in the series.

​

It matches all the other episodes because you defined it into place by basing the criteria on the observations that you made.

​

Its no wonder that you can find patterns in that abstraction, and calculating the odds of them occurring is a worthless endeavor.

---

quote:

---

your M#'s are just based on what you noticed and selected for [snip]

or against based on whether it could fit a pattern or not

. You don't have M#'s for things you didn't notice and you don't include M#'s that don't fit the pattern you are creating.

​

You're diluting the criteria for your pattern into one that can fit a lot of possibilities.

---

It will be interesting to hear what they say about it. Have you done this for the paper submitted for review? Personally I think you need to either

1. Reduce all elements to single aspects or
2. record which aspect of an element is observed (ie -- P.Al{spaceship}

and list all the observed element aspects for each event, not just the initial observation that triggers the event. Doing this would help distinguish which event starts the "pattern" for each episode (ie -- what distinguishes E3 from E1 as the beginning) Segregating the aspects out and recording them instead of the element lumping would avoid this problem. You could have colors as "mark" elements rather than "person" elements. To properly evaluate the probabilities we need to compare the number of aspects that give a positive fit to the number of aspects that give a negative fit. M12 has only one aspect: temporary interruption (which is subject to subjective interpretation -- is this a scene shift ?) and relatively rare if we can trust your data record showing only It only appears 4 times in the whole (documented) data set (possibly to make events 12 to 15 get counted when they otherwise would fail,?) ... in four episodes out of 76. So every time you see a star field you observe the "person" P.BW? The "data" you provided shows otherwise ... after the first season you only recorded the initial elements, and most of the string of events were the shorter variations per Message 308: The average distribution from the "pattern" variations is 10.5 events per episode and 17 episodes are longer while 59 are shorter. I haven't gone through season 1 to see if any of the episodes are documented for 25 or more elements, but this certainly is not an average shown by the data. This is another problem with the way the data was recorded. Agreed: It is your duty to provide these explanations rather than be continually referring back to your paper -- unless you list page and paragraph, in which case you could just quote ...This forum isn't a peer review process, it is a comment exchange and debate, and it is against forum rules to debate by referring to a document.Without more complete data (ie -- all the observed aspects in chronological order, without division into elements nor set into events) it is not possible to review further without wasting a lot of time.Enjoy

Hi Martin. I noticed that you could use some help proving your point.Here's a link to the introduction of the theory and pdf for more detail:Theory Of Intelligent DesignRelated computer models:
Intelligence Generator and Detectorhttp://www.planet-source-code.com/...goryOrSearchResults.asp

Are you here to discuss this with us or are you just spamming links?

I'm here to explain the theory. Do you have a question?

Yes, some:From your first link:

quote:

---

This is the only known Theory of Intelligent Design that provides scientifically testable predictions and models to explain the origin of intelligence and how intelligent cause works.

---

Considering that you're posting a claim of "the only ID theory" in a thread that was started with another different ID theory, how do you feel about the other ID theory and what it says?You called the OP "Martin", do you know them?Are you familiar with their theory?Again from your first link:

quote:

---

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby the behavior of matter powers a coexisting trinity of systematically self-similar (in each other's image, likeness) intelligent systems at the molecular, cellular and multicellular level as follows:

---

Come on now; that's the Christian Holy Trinity. Why should a scientific paper suppose that the Trinity best explains the intelligent cause of a certain features of the universe?I'm already wondering if your religious beliefs are causing a bias in your research.Before I do a deep dive into your work, how can I be sure that this is all isn't just a big convoluted exercise in The Sharpshooter Fallacy?Can't you just explain the whole theory in a single sentence?Like, if I was explaining the Theory of Evolution in a single sentence, I'd be like:The diversity of the species here can be explained by a process of decent with modification, where random mutations that are passed on from parents to offspring are acted upon by natural selection, where the environment impacts the reproductive success of the population.So, what's your theory?

Since there is already a competing theory that is supported by actual evidence and that adequately explains what is seen, the first question anyone trying to market ID needs to answer is "Why should a secondary theory even be considered unless it can explain what is seen better than the TOE?"So far no one has ever presented a convincing answer to that question.

quote:

---

Considering that you're posting a claim of "the only ID theory" in a thread that was started with another different ID theory, how do you feel about the other ID theory and what it says?

---

They appear to be attempting to find evidence that a theory is possible, not present a theory of ID.

quote:

---

You called the OP "Martin", do you know them?

---

No, not personally.

quote:

---

Are you familiar with their theory?

---

I understand the paper well enough to know they needed help making their point that a theory was possible.

quote:

---

Again from your first link:

​

quote:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby the behavior of matter powers a coexisting trinity of systematically self-similar (in each other's image, likeness) intelligent systems at the molecular, cellular and multicellular level as follows:
Come on now; that's the Christian Holy Trinity. Why should a scientific paper suppose that the Trinity best explains the intelligent cause of a certain features of the universe?

---

It's not the "Christian Holy Trinity" but it's certainly ironic how it turned out this way:

quote:

---

Definition of TRINITY
Trinity Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

​

1
: the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma
2
not capitalized : a group of three closely related persons or things

---

You are simply stereotyping.

quote:

---

I'm already wondering if your religious beliefs are causing a bias in your research.

---

I'm not a church goer or follower of any certain religion. My life revolves around science.

quote:

---

Before I do a deep dive into your work, how can I be sure that this is all isn't just a big convoluted exercise in The Sharpshooter Fallacy?

---

I guess there is no way to know until you are able to understand it. But it helps to have some experience in computer modeling, electronics and cognitive science.

quote:

---

Can't you just explain the whole theory in a single sentence?

---

No. There is way too much vital information to fit in one sentence (unless it's a couple of pages long then maybe).

quote:

---

Like, if I was explaining the Theory of Evolution in a single sentence, I'd be like:

​

The diversity of the species here can be explained by a process of decent with modification, where random mutations that are passed on from parents to offspring are acted upon by natural selection, where the environment impacts the reproductive success of the population.

---

That does not explain how intelligence and intelligent cause works. You are using generalizations that oversimplify the origin of species and are unable to explain the origin of life, or intelligence. So yes you only need one sentence, while I need 50 or more just to get started.Edited by GaryG, : Fix underline.Edited by GaryG, : Remove underlining characters that did not work.

quote:

---

Since there is already a competing theory that is supported by actual evidence and that adequately explains what is seen, the first question anyone trying to market ID needs to answer is "Why should a secondary theory even be considered unless it can explain what is seen better than the TOE?"

---

Darwinian theory is not for explaining how intelligence works, nor is it able to explain the origin of life/intelligence.There is no "competing theory".Edited by GaryG, : To add: There is no "competing theory".

Nonsense. We know pretty much how intelligence works and I see nothing in ID that has a chance of explaining the origin of life although we certainly are getting closer and closer.Sorry but ID seems pretty stupid since so far no one has presented either the intelligent critter or evidence of any design but there is overwhelming evidence that stuff just happens.So again, what possible reason could there be to even waste time with ID? Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Jar, how much of the theory have you studied and understand?And could you please explain the origin of intelligence, including your operational definition for the phenomenon.

I can tell you what we see and that intelligence is simply the result of neuron firing in the brains of living things.It seems to be quite common in nature and pretty wide spread but all indications are that it is just mechanical and chemical.And how much of what theory? So far I see no such thing as a Theory of ID since so far no one has presented any evidence that there is any design, designer or intelligent designer or any evidence that such a thing might be needed, worthwhile or interesting.

quote:

---

And how much of what theory?

---

The theory I am here to discuss:

quote:

---

Introduction
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby the behavior of matter powers a coexisting trinity of systematically self-similar (in each other's image, likeness) intelligent systems at the molecular, cellular and multicellular level as follows:

​

(1) Molecular Level Intelligence: Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular systems that in time become molecular level intelligence, where biological RNA and DNA memory systems learn over time by replication of their accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells, is a primary source of our instinctual behaviors, and causes molecular level social differentiation (i.e. speciation).

​

(2) Cellular Level Intelligence: Molecular level intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular level intelligence. This intelligence level controls moment to moment cellular responses such as locomotion/migration and cellular level social differentiation (i.e. neural plasticity). At our conception we were only at the cellular intelligence level. Two molecular intelligence systems (egg and sperm) which are on their own unable to self-replicate combined into a single self-replicating cell, called a zygote. The zygote then divided to become a colony of cells called an embryo. Later during fetal development we became a functional multicellular intelligence with self-learning brain to control motor muscle movements1 (also sweat gland motor muscles).

​

(3) Multicellular Level Intelligence: Cellular level intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular level intelligence. In this case a multicellular body is controlled by an intelligent neural brain expressing all three intelligence levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly) and other behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, locomotion/migration and multicellular level social differentiation (i.e. occupation). Successful designs remain in the biosphere’s interconnected collective (RNA/DNA) memory to help keep going the billions year old cycle of life where in our case not all individuals must reproduce for the human lineage to benefit from all in society.

​

Reciprocal cause/causation goes in both the forward and reverse direction. These behavioral pathways cause all of our complex intelligence related behaviors to connect back to the behavior of matter, which does not necessarily need to be intelligent to be the fundamental source of consciousness.

​

A behavior from any system qualifies as intelligent behavior by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] something to control (body or modeling platform) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen), [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are separate data elements, [3] confidence (central hedonic, homeostasis) system that increments (stored in memory) confidence value of a successful motor action else decrements the confidence value, [4] guess mechanism for a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to tumble.

​

At all biological intelligence levels whatever sensory the system has to work with addresses a memory that works like a random access memory chip used in a computer. It is possible to put the contents of a RAM into a Read Only Memory (ROM) but using a ROM instead of RAM takes away the system's ability to self-learn, it cannot form new memories that are needed to adapt to new environments. The result is more of a zombie that may at first appear to be a fully functional intelligence but they are missing something necessary, a RAM in the circuit, not a ROM. Behavior of matter does not need to be intelligent, a fully trained (all knowing) ROM could be used to produce atomic/molecular behavior. But a ROM would not work where intelligent behavior is needed. Unless the ROM contains all-knowing knowledge of the future and all the humans it will ever meet in its lifetime it can never recall memories of meeting them, or their name and what they look like.

​

For machine intelligence the IBM Watson system that won at Jeopardy qualifies as intelligent. Word combinations for hypotheses were guessed then tested against memory for confidence in each being a hypothesis that is true and whether confident enough in its best answer to push a button/buzzer. The Watson platform had a speaker (for vocal muscles) and muscles guiding a pen was simulated by an electric powered writing device.

​

For computer modeling purposes the behavior of matter can be thought of as being all-knowing in the sense that the behavior is inherent, does not have to learn its responses. A computer model then starts off with this behavior already in memory and has no GUESS or CONFIDENCE included in the algorithm, as does intelligence. Memory contents then never changes. Only a GUESS can write new data to memory and GUESS must here be taken out of the algorithm. But it is possible to leave the CONFIDENCE in the algorithm, it will still work the exact same way. Where this in time proves to be true for real matter it would be a valuable clue as to how consciousness works and possibly how to model it, which may in turn help answer the big questions including those pertaining to afterlife.

​

We are part of a molecular learning process that keeps itself going through time by replicating previous contents of genetic memory along with good (better than random) guesses what may work better in the next replication, for our children. The resulting cladogram shows a progression of adapting designs evidenced by the fossil record where never once was there not a predecessor of similar design (which can at times lead to entirely new function) present in memory for the descendant design to have come from.

​

The combined knowledge of all three of these intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may stay to defend their nests "till death do they part". Merciless alligators will fiercely protect their well-cared-for offspring who are taught how to lure nest building birds into range by putting sticks on their head and they will scurry into the safety of her mouth when in danger. For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from an eternal conscious loving "spirit" existing at another level our multicellular intelligence level may sense but cannot directly experience. It is possible that one or both of the parents will later lose interest in the partnership, or they may have more offspring than they can possibly take care of, or none at all, but "for better or for worse" for such intelligence anywhere in the universe, there will nonetheless be the love we need and cherish to guide us, forever through generations of time...

---

Theory Of Intelligent Design