Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Not exactly. You asked 'What exactly is so intelligent ...'
Actually I didn't understand your question.
Are you asking what is so special about our intelligence as humans
or
What exactly is the ID of our body, mind and soul etc.

Our intelligence is special in many ways. It is unique and the only intelligence in the Universe that we can observe for now. Actually we don't know how much autonomous it actually is ... and whether it is not a part of some hidden configuration 'client-server' attached to universal intelligence in the hyperspace or s.th.

As far as the ID of our body is concerned - it is light years ahead with the material - science will not catch up with it very soon.


You cannot fly because FM hasn't found yet the fossil that will attach you to the flying branch of the taxonomy.



Yes, but we don't know how a perfect creature would look like.
Suppose we are immortal - in what time we will exhaust the resources of the Earth to ground zero ... and get extinct when running out of food or fuel or water or whatever.

Actually we are designed (if we are designed at all) with some freedom to develop and to improve (on the grounds of restricted combination of the genes with 'preview assessment' of the eventual results), freedom of perception (we hear in the lower part of the RF spectrum and see in the upper part of the RF spectrum, just before the UV waves and X-rays when the things become too dangerous to us), freedom of expression, freedom of communication, freedom of thinking, freedom of decision making.
This does not seem too imperfect to me.
Can you prove mathematically or by some computations that a planet with human species speaking only one language for example would be a better case scenario than it is at present?

I thought my post quite clear. But let me re-state it. What is so intelligent about man's design?

For the enviroment we live in here on earth I can assure you if I had the eyesight of a hawk, the nose of a bloodhound, the srtength of a gorilla, the speed of a gazelle and could fly I would be a more perfecxtly designed creature than I am now...so either the "designer" fucked up or I'm a random evolutional mutation.

Occam's Razor always.

Ok, simply put religion is a human construct and was inventeed to control other humans. To comment on "gods love and salvation" would be to lend creedence to an obvious fraud and or delusion

As is our 'modern science!" Just another religion, they only changed the name!

How much is it - several kilometers. What are you going to do with that sight ... in front of the TV. Everybody should have that sight otherwise you will be an outsider and will become 'too dangerous' to the people around you, who will take measures to cope with the disbalance.
In case you have for example vision in the X-ray part of the RF psectrum you would be able to perform examination of materials ... and people without any equipment. For good or for bad we don't have this.


... you will most probably die on the spot from the socks of the people in the tram


There are some people with similar to stregth ... most of them ending up in jail if they don't become policemen or soldiers of the foreign legion before that.


Look at the people around you - most of them are afraid to walk on foot and you are talking aboud defficiency in speed.


The money changers and the usurers will charge you 'airport tax' for landing somewhere and most probably you will have to hang up into the air ... and eventually to sleep on some rock.


You cannot say more before understanding how you are designed at present.
There was a guy on another blog claiming that if he had to design life he would make it without any bacteria and viruses.
Without the bacteria in the SIs we will develop cancer in less than several weeks due to candida overgrowth.
Our design (if has happened) is a common multi-criterial optimisation problem. The idea is not to have one or few of the parameters at their extreme, but rather to have the whole system in perfect and sustainable balance, reliability of functioning, compliance with the environment and with the other people around us, etc.


If we are random mutations we would have different spectrum of vision, for example, and would cover as statistics the probabilistic function of distribution ... for we would have derived from different species.


The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power.
Do you really think that the probabilistic theory of causation is simpler theory than the hypothesis based on ID?

Oh yeah I forgot x-ray vision.


Oh yeah, I forgot imortality

But suppose the control is beneficial to other humans. I hardly think no control is.

Even a gilded cage is still a cage.
You're right in that the control was so that the ignorant masses would not destroy themselves...but then if the controlers didnt do this they would not have any subjects to rule...would they?

We have vision in the most beautiful part of the RF spectrum. What is your problem? Our vision is not intended only for data acquisition but it is also perception of the world ... that may provoke feelings and provide Zen experiences. Our vision is more perfect than you can possibly imagine.
Besides that if you have eyesight of a hawk you would hardly be able to repair watches for example, for it will be very difficult to 'design and construct' such an eyeball.


If you think that immortality is something very good - think again. Suppose some dictator being immortal ... or some usurer having collected 99.9% of all the money in the world - then you may pray for some people not to be so immortal. Besides that all these super-old people will drastically impede the opportunities for development and growth ... with their way of thinking for example or outdated education and skills, not to mention that the equation of the pensions would hardly have any solution. Who is going to earn the money for the pensions of these immortal people?
BTW how many (if any) optimization problems have you ever solved?

Oh Yeah...I want to be 25 for ever!

In that case you will be fighting all the time with somebody for something ... or would not be able to get sober from the party marathon.

As long as the hangover is not eternal I'm good with that

Besides that what exactly are you going to do when in 1 Bys the water leaves the Earth and the Sun starts becoming red giant and starts engulfing the planets one by one starting with Mercuty, Venus ... and the next planet will be which?
Where are you going to live? The Universe is 13.8 Bys and some day it may go back into the Dimention X (from where it came). You will have to look for another space and time ... and gravitational continuum in order 'to encash' your immortality.
Can you give an example when something without constraints (the ethernal life in our case) is better than something with constraints (finite life span)?

Oh yeah, I want an IQ of 2000 so I can overcome these bug-a-boos.

... and how are you going to acquire such an IQ score. The highest IQ recorded so far is 298 and the highest testable is 310 (or 210+).
In order to test your incredible IQ you should invent a new scale and new methods for calculating the scores.
Besides that the very statement 'I want an IQ of 2000' is a guarantee that you will hardly ever jump over the 100. IQ is not given – the very verb is wrong - it is acquired. It is simple knowledge and skills and ability to process knowledge and to use skills and to construct heuristic logical inferences. So in order to get that IQ+ you should be dreaming of having the logic of reasoning and the justification rather than 'to be given' the IQ score directly.
... and how much blood will a brain with an IQ of 2000 consume and how will the body look like that is going to supply it.
Obviously it is not only the immortality that you are missing ... for now.
BTW how are you going to spend your immortality?

Hey...if my brain is being designed it can be designed to have the capability to achieve a 2000 IQ...isnt this the point of this discussion?

Cigars, vodka martinis, loose women, and pizza.



Hey, was I just insulted here? Ok buddy, I'll have you know I've tested at 125...so there!

You asked if I can make a sentence with the terms. I did. What part of the sentence is invalid and your reference?

Was the above ment for me?

No, and not exactly.
1. The figure 2000 is too round to be true. With such roundness this figure could neither be real objective, nor taken seriously as such.
2. You don't know what does highest testable 210+ mean, don't you? It means that there is neither metrics nor tests to make an assessment above that.
3. Even if you have 125 (without cheating) as you claim, this is too far away from 2000 (which is your final destination ... obviously).
4. How can you be so sure that the IQ of the Intelligent Designer Himself is not limited to 1000, for instance (which might be the absolute margin of feasibility) - I am taking this 1000 at random, for the number to be beautiful and rounded ... by following your shining example.

Can you prove that if your brain had been designed it should have had the capability to achieve an IQ above 2000 (whatever this might mean without the testability) ... and I am not going to comment what this 'above' is supposed to mean (it happens with the feeling that the argument is too shaky and it needs to be reinforced by something).

There is more, the very assumption: 'If my brain had been designed it should have had the capability to achieve an IQ above 2000' is not only without any evidences, but is also without any justification that it might be true ... and valid. Without the testability for assessing IQ of 2000 this claim is invalid as a statement, no matter semantics of the presumtion.
In the very same way I might claim that 'If my brain had NOT been designed it should have had the capability to achieve an IQ not more than 5o' (which is also very beautiful and rounded number).

So, if some people persist to present such arguments:
1. One should find the absolute margin of assessing IQ in the general case of intelligence.
2. One should find reliable and sufficiently representative tests to measure the maximum achievable IQ by our ... and/or by any ILFs.
3. One should find the margin of stupidity - the point at which the matter leaves the stochatics and starts becoming intelligent, etc.

Otherwise this is just fireworks show, set up into the air ... for amusement of the population and without any semantics.

Considering how an IQ is calculated...how can an IQ of 2000 be achieved?

Does anyone know, considering how it is calculated, what the highest an IQ can be?