Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> DAVID: I[i] fully understand your definition of intelligence and it fits the function of single-celled animals. I use the same definition as you, and your acceptance of the 50/50 observation I use, in an indirect way admits that I might be right 50/50.[/i] 
> 
> No problem, so long as you acknowledge that I too might be right. 
> 
> DAVID: [i]I have pointed out over and over that all that is ever found is molecular reactions when looking inside. Those reactions are guided by information in all the layers of the genome, only a portion of which are fully understood so far. My opinion of 100% is my prediction for the endpoint of full understanding of how living cells work.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]And I have pointed out over and over again that scientists can ONLY study molecular reactions, even in their attempts to understand the source of human intelligence. I don’t have a problem with your prediction that your unproven prejudices will be confirmed. Dawkins has the same approach to science. My objection is to his and your dismissal of alternative unproven explanations that do not fit in with his/your prejudices.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]'Alternative unproven explanations' are nebulous propositions. They may fit your logical review of factual material, but they do not fit my logical interpretations. We will remain apart[/i].
> 
> There is nothing nebulous about my hypothetical explanation (cellular intelligence), just as there is nothing nebulous about your prejudice (cells are all automatons). My objection is to the fact that you constantly state your own unproven prejudices as if they were facts, and you refuse to acknowledge that unproven alternatives are possible. However, the comments above are somewhat more moderate in tone - particularly the reference to the logic of my hypothesis. Thank you.