Testing the Laws of Intelligence



Recently, I made a vain attempt to test natural selection in the
context of macroevolution. One poster's response summed up the issue.
He said: If you want to test the sorts of changes that require
millions of years, you need to help develop space habitat, purchase
your own asteroid and convert it into a laboratory, hire an army to
defend your lab for millions of years against all future military
activities of the rest of humanity, and somehow convince your
descendents to carry on your programme after you are long dead. I
suggest you stick to the short-term evolution experiments. Do you have
the money to pay for lab and skilled workers?

End quote.

In essence, and since no one disagreed with him, he seems to be
admitting that natural selection in the context of macroevolution
cannot be tested. This means that the concept of macroevolution
through the mechanism of natural selection (or any other mechanism) is
not a scientific theory.

So.... rather than spending any more time on an attempt to understand
a theory that is admitted to be not scientific, I would like to return
my attention to that which can be tested and demonstrated: the laws
of intelligence.

The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
level of applied intelligence/mental activity.

In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
that system or systems.

But for FLOI to remain a law, it must be able to withstand challenges
to its consistency. Are there any tests that would falsify FLOI?

Here, I will offer one such test: Produce a situation in which order
can demonstrably occur without the input of mental activity, and such
a situation will disqualify FLOI.

Keep in mind, though, that you cannot bring to the table any examples
that are themselves in question, and claim them as evidence for order
without intelligent input; i.e., snowflakes or crystals.....UNLESS you
can demonstrate that such items and the systems that create them are
definitely not of intelligent origin.

So what tests do you have that can disqualify the first law of
intelligence?

.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Testing the Laws of Intelligence
    ... admitting that natural selection in the context of macroevolution ... the greater the evidence of mental activity behind ... But for FLOI to remain a law, it must be able to withstand challenges ... So what tests do you have that can disqualify the first law of ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Testing the Laws of Intelligence
    ... admitting that natural selection in the context of macroevolution ... This means that the concept of macroevolution ... through the mechanism of natural selection is ... But for FLOI to remain a law, it must be able to withstand challenges ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Testing the Laws of Intelligence
    ... admitting that natural selection in the context of macroevolution ... That evidence doesn't go away because the theory is ... But for FLOI to remain a law, it must be able to withstand challenges ... So what tests do you have that can disqualify the first law of ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Testing the Laws of Intelligence
    ... But natural selection can easily be demonstrated at a somewhat more ... admitting that natural selection in the context of macroevolution ... Then crystals must take enormous amounts of mental activity to form ... "applied intelligence/mental activity" being involved. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Testing the Laws of Intelligence
    ... But natural selection can easily be demonstrated at a somewhat more ... admitting that natural selection in the context of macroevolution ... We in fact can and do observe and study "macroevolution" occurring ... level of applied intelligence/mental activity. ...
    (talk.origins)