Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin

From: George Hammond (nowhere_at_nomailspam.net)
Date: 12/23/04 

Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 07:32:46 +0000 (UTC)

"A. Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ghvis0tcfsn7mbjd2keaf3s3vu8s0m8b16@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:50:34 +0000 (UTC), "George Hammond"
> <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"TMG" <TMG@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
> >news:5sWdnUix2NIIjlTcRVn-qA@comcast.com...
> >>
> >> George Hammond wrote:
>
>
> <Clip>
>
> >> Put up or shut up. Run the test. Gather human subjects from 3 to 30 and
> >> document what exactly is "seen" and "unseen".
> >>
> >> If a theory doesn't provide testable, unique predictions, it isn't
> >science.
> >
> >[Hammond]
> > With all due respect to your attempt to post a message with actual
> >scientific content.... everything you've said above is flat out wrong.
> >
> >And.. we don't need to wade through a morass of data to see
> >that it is wrong:
> >
> > Lets keep it simple. Consider a mentally retarded person with
> >an IQ of say 66.6 I'm sure you and I have both seen many such
> >people. Now... some developmental (growth related) accident
> >happened to that person (in most cases) whereby instead of
> >reaching their normal intelligence of IQ=100, their brain growth was
> >"arrested" (e.g. 'retarded') and they were left with the "mind of
> >a 12 year old" as it is commonly put (note 12yrs = .666 x 18yrs).
> > Now we don't need to adminster a battery of tests to that person
> >to recognize by simple observation that the person is acutely
> >delimited in their "awareness" of their surroundings... that is,
> >their "awareness of reality"... "reality" being defined as the world
> >they would have been aware of (or 'seen') if they had reached
> >IQ=100 (their normal full growth IQ).
> > All I am saying is that this can be expressed by saying that
> >
> > "1/3 of reality is INVISIBLE to that retarded person".
> >
> > Now, I can't see how you can honestly and in good faith
> >take issue with that assertion. It is absolutely a known, in
> >fact legally recognized, fact.
>
> Come on now, you've been associated with the Massachusetts Department
> of Mental Health (but in what capacity you're not telling), you should
> know better.
> Mental retardation is related to a person's ability to function, not
> the ability to perceive the physical world around them. It deals
> with a person's ability to process certain abstract information or
> ideas. Are you suggesting that the color blue is not as blue to a
> retarded person, or that they are unable to see a third of the stars
> in the night sky that a person with an IQ of 100 can?

[Hammond]
   JUST AS I SUSPECTED.... even the most belligerent heckler
on this thread actually has a rational mind and an actual
scientific interest in the topic... I'll try to keep that in mind
in the future when the urge to fly off the handle overcomes me!

   You say that mental retardation is:

        "...the inability to process certain abstract
         information or ideas.."

YOU ARE CORRECT. In fact modern science has already proven
that:

1. "Intelligence" is in fact the measure of the brain's
     "information processing speed" in bits/second.

2. Mental retardation is legally defined as an IQ of
      less than 70 on a scale where 100 is average.

3. Therefore, scientifically and legally, Mental Retardation
      is:
     A REDUCED INFORMATION PROCESSING
     SPEED OF THE BRAIN

Now we can conclude from this the following:

1. "Perceived reality" (actual 'seen' reality) is defined by
      the rate of sensory information and analysisi that is
      processed by the brain.

2. If your info-processing speed is reduced by, say 30%,
      then 30% of your perceived reality will be MISSING.

3. We may express this fact by saying that "30% of reality
       is INVISIBLE to a person with an IQ of 70."

4. This CERTAINLY is in agreement with the observed behavior
      of mentally retarded people... even by a casulal observer!

I don't see how anyone can take issue with that argument!

> > By the same token then, a normal 12 year old child, who has
> >only 2/3's the intelligence of an 18 year old (note I said 'intelligence'
> >not 'intelligence quotent') MUST, just like the retarded adult
> >above.... SEE ONLY 2/3's of reality... where "reality" is defined
> >as the world he will see when he reaches 18. QED, 1/3 of the
> >world is INVISIBLE to a 12 year old child.

>
> Brain development is nowhere near that simplistic or linear.

[Hammond]
It certainly is to a first order approximation. Not only that,
it is EXPERIMENTALLY MEASURABLY so... to
2-decimal point accuracy in IQ tests and Mental speed tests.

> This
> bizarre concept of yours should also be easily testable. Just
> identify what a typical 18 year old perceives that a typical 12 year
> old doesn't.

[Hammond]
an IQ test tells us that. IQ testing is a century old, and
it is KNOWN that intellligence grows linearly for the
first 18 years of life... which is WHY your intelligence has
to be divided by your AGE to calculate IQ.

>
> > Now try to be reasonable and act like a PhD which you are..
> >and address the general principle here rather than arguing about
> >whether a rifle bullet is invisible or not... certainly at close range
> >they are!
> > And further more... that teacher's desk you refer to is the
> >'same size' it was 50 years ago RELATIVE to the RULER lying
> >on the desk, but it is NOT the 'same size' relative to YOU, since
> >you were only half the size you are now 50 years ago... so as
> >far as YOU are concerned... the desk is now 1/2 the size it used
> >to be.
>
> As measured against his adult sized thumb perhaps. Does that mean
> that abnormally tall children are smarter or see a larger percentage
> of reality than shorter children?

[Hammond]
Oh comon.. don't bother me with dumb questions. We are
here talkiing about "growth related" differences in itelligence...
not "genetic" differecenses in itelligence..... i.e. AFTER the
"genetic component" has been parcelled out of the analysis.
This is commonly done by using identical twins for instance.

> Alex

====================================
   SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE

http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
        mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================

Relevant Pages

  • Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin
    ... >> the ability to perceive the physical world around them. ... considered the borderline for mental retardation remains the same. ... should still be capable of perceiving as much as the next guy, ... >> Brain development is nowhere near that simplistic or linear. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin
    ... Mental retardation is related to a person's ability to function, ... >on the desk, but it is NOT the 'same size' relative to YOU, since ... As measured against his adult sized thumb perhaps. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast