RE: To the question of does God exist, the answer is whether Intelligence created Life
September 27, 2025 at 11:12 pm
(This post was last modified: September 27, 2025 at 11:25 pm by Paleophyte.)
It occurs to me that the OP is not intelligent on the basis of his own "Laws". He perceives, but either he doesn't understand or fails to act. Here we are 140 posts later and he's still babbling on about his "Laws" as if they were handed down to him on The Mountain. Let's see if we can fix that or if he's unintelligent even by his own definition.
(1) Yo! Pan-Pan! May-Day! Your first "Law" isn't a law. It's a handful of characteristics that are insufficient to properly define intelligence. You can verify this by asking Google "Hey! What is intelligence?" and watch the AI give an answer that's very similar to this but stripped of all the awkward BS. That's how non-profound your "Law" is.
(2) I'll take it that you can perceive this?
(3) And that you understood this?
(4) Then, if you haven't acted on it, you're in violation of your own first "Law". Don't worry, this won't affect the way that we see you.
(5) Whereas this argument invokes you first "Law" it is self-affirming. To deny it is to prove it right. To ignore it is to prove it right. Only by admitting that your "Law" is no more than a poor Google scrape can you demonstrate intelligence.
Good luck with that little distressed one.
(1) Yo! Pan-Pan! May-Day! Your first "Law" isn't a law. It's a handful of characteristics that are insufficient to properly define intelligence. You can verify this by asking Google "Hey! What is intelligence?" and watch the AI give an answer that's very similar to this but stripped of all the awkward BS. That's how non-profound your "Law" is.
(2) I'll take it that you can perceive this?
(3) And that you understood this?
(4) Then, if you haven't acted on it, you're in violation of your own first "Law". Don't worry, this won't affect the way that we see you.
(5) Whereas this argument invokes you first "Law" it is self-affirming. To deny it is to prove it right. To ignore it is to prove it right. Only by admitting that your "Law" is no more than a poor Google scrape can you demonstrate intelligence.
Good luck with that little distressed one.
