subjective science

Originally posted by @dj2becker
How do you account for the intelligence of a process that can learn from previous experience?

You should ask Dr Watson. His explanation is interesting. I seek neither to add or take away from what I have read about his ideas. I defer to him.

Originally posted by @fmf
I think admitting that one does not know what the correct "explanation" is can be evidence of being a thinker. I think somebody insisting that they are absolutely certain about what the "explanation" is, is not necessarily much of a thinker.

Who said anything about being absolutely certain about anything? As an educator, which student would you gauge as showing greater cognitive thought to a question, the one that says they don't know or the one that offers some form of explanation?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Who said anything about being absolutely certain about anything? As an educator, which student would you gauge as showing greater cognitive thought to a question, the one that says they don't know or the one that offers some form of explanation?

You are just asking the same question. My answer hasn't changed from a few moments ago.

Originally posted by @fmf
What do I think lies behind our existence, our evolution, our origin...

[b]A) An intelligent designer
B) An non intelligent random process
C) Another option
?

I don't know. I think nobody knows.[/b]

Why would you think we don't know or can't know that some form of intelligence (whatever it may be) could be responsible for an intelligent process?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Who said anything about being absolutely certain about anything?

It's a reference to what you - presumably one of the self-professed "actual thinkers" you mentioned - have come up with. You're "absolutely certain" about the existence of a supernatural creator, right?

Originally posted by @fmf
You are just asking the same question. My answer hasn't changed from a few moments ago.

Yes I know. In your mind someone that claims to be an ignoramus is a thinker and someone who offers an explanation is an intellectual charlatan. There is no surprise there. By the way where did you get your educational qualification from?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Why would you think we don't know or can't know that some form of intelligence (whatever it may be) could be responsible for an intelligent process?

Maybe we - mankind - will know one day. In the meantime, I do not know and I don't know anybody who has persuaded me that they do, including atheists who insist that there is certainly no supernatural intelligence responsible for our existence.

Originally posted by @fmf
It's a reference to what you - presumably one of the self-professed "actual thinkers" you mentioned - have come up with. You're "absolutely certain" about the existence of a supernatural creator, right?

I believe an intelligent designer is the most probable explanation for the intelligence and design that is seen in evolution. I said nothing about absolute certainty.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Yes I know. In your mind someone that claims to be an ignoramus is a thinker and someone who offers an explanation is an intellectual charlatan.

I said no such thing. I just think you are a charlatan, that's all. It may be something you are pretending to be just because it's the internet. I've told you this before. It's as if you don't read what I post.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I believe an intelligent designer is the most probable explanation for the intelligence and design that is seen in evolution. I said nothing about absolute certainty.

OK. Noted.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
By the way where did you get your educational qualification from?

I am not interested in telling you this information. About 20 of the regulars here at RHP know quite a lot of my biographical details. You are not one of them. And I'm fine with that. You need not ask again.

Originally posted by @fmf
Maybe we - mankind - will know one day. In the meantime, I do not know and I don't know anybody who has persuaded me that they do, including atheists who insist that there is certainly no supernatural intelligence responsible for our existence.

That fact that you are not convinced by something doesn't mean that no one else can be.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
That fact that you are not convinced by something doesn't mean that no one else can be.

This is a 'bears poo in the woods' "point". Why on earth would I assert that other people are not convinced of their superstitious beliefs when clearly they are?

Originally posted by @fmf
This is a 'bears poo in the woods' "point". Why on earth would I assert that other people are not convinced of their superstitious beliefs when clearly they are?

What then would convince you that someone 'knows' something?

Originally posted by @fmf
I am not interested in telling you this information. About 20 of the regulars here at RHP know quite a lot of my biographical details. You are not one of them. And I'm fine with that. You need not ask again.

I just find it odd that you seem to think that someone who offers an explanation for something is less of a thinker than someone who just sits back and says they don't know.