Why does this exist?

[Inquirer]

Is there a difference between this and random notes, random tempo, random pauses - if so, then to what can we attribute these differences?

[Inquirer]

I'm not interested in who brought up intelligence first. I'm interested in what your point is with this thread (I replied to your OP and you ignored it) and your latest questions/assertions about intelligence.

You seem extremely reluctant to explain. That too is very interesting.

No, that's not true Jose, you just posted this:

It's interesting to see how "intelligence" has become creationists' latest "God of the Gaps" target.

Then allow me to explain. I am not interested in who first mentioned intelligence. However, in the last few posts, intelligence has become the focus of discussion and I am interested in aspects of that discussion (as I've already described). My observation about creationists, "God of the Gaps", and intelligence is just that....my observation.

Nor does your personal interpretation of all this mean anything to me

Good. Then we can dispense with this recent "who said what first" nonsense.

you can respond to my OP as any polite person would do

Which I did and you ignored.

If I am a "creationist" that has no bearing on the questions I asked, well it shouldn't matter any more than my age, gender, height, sexual proclivity, taste in science fiction, the art I choose to hang on my wall or the music I listen to or who I vote for.

Are you denying that "intelligence" is a common topic of discussion and debate among creationists?

If you cannot respond to questions about nature without resorting to personal attacks then I won't spend my valuable time replying to you.

I have not engaged in any personal attacks here.

Why does it always matter to you who asks a question and why they asked that question? can you really not be objective and dispassionate when discussing science?

Can I then take it that there is no point to the OP or the questions you posed to DNG about intelligence?

Please, please no more explaining, no more apologies, no more "ifs" and "buts" for your insults.

[Jose Fly]

It's interesting to see how "intelligence" has become creationists' latest "God of the Gaps" target. From what I've seen, creationists now mostly focus on three subjects: 1) the origin of the universe, 2) the origin of the first life on earth, and 3) intelligence. All three are subjects of the "Oh yeah, well how do you explain X then" tactic.

If you were a teacher teaching a class about say information, structure or some such and a student who you knew was an atheist, asked:

Professor, is there a difference between this pianists achievements and random notes, random tempo, random pauses - if so, then to what can we attribute these differences?

Would your answer be phrased differently if the student was someone you knew was not an atheist, perhaps a student you knew was also taking theology classes?

My answer would be largely the same as what I posted in my initial reply to the OP. Perhaps you should start there.

You should understand that to seriously claim you are a scientist your answer should be the same irrespective of the student's presumed beliefs or your own personal feelings,

Again, go back and look at the reply I posted to the OP.

yet when I asked the question you were clearly incapable of decoupling your personal prejudices and had to reply with:

It's interesting to see how "intelligence" has become creationists' latest "God of the Gaps" target. From what I've seen, creationists now mostly focus on three subjects: 1) the origin of the universe, 2) the origin of the first life on earth, and 3) intelligence. All three are subjects of the "Oh yeah, well how do you explain X then" tactic.

I wonder how that theology student, having asked you that question, should proceed when they hear your reply in full view of the rest of the class...

Again, try and keep up. I only posted the above after you and DNG began discussing intelligence.

Please, please no more explaining, no more apologies, no more "explanations" for your insults.

Seems like you see "creationist" as an insult. That's quite interesting.

[Inquirer]

It's interesting to see how "intelligence" has become creationists' latest "God of the Gaps" target. From what I've seen, creationists now mostly focus on three subjects: 1) the origin of the universe, 2) the origin of the first life on earth, and 3) intelligence. All three are subjects of the "Oh yeah, well how do you explain X then" tactic.

If you were a teacher teaching a class about say information, structure or some such and a student who you knew was an atheist, asked:

Professor, is there a difference between this pianists achievements and random notes, random tempo, random pauses - if so, then to what can we attribute these differences?

Would your answer be phrased differently if the student was someone you knew was not an atheist, perhaps a student you knew was also taking theology classes?

My answer would be largely the same as what I posted in my initial reply to the OP. Perhaps you should start there.

You should understand that to seriously claim you are a scientist your answer should be the same irrespective of the student's presumed beliefs or your own personal feelings,

Again, go back and look at the reply I posted to the OP.

yet when I asked the question you were clearly incapable of decoupling your personal prejudices and had to reply with:

It's interesting to see how "intelligence" has become creationists' latest "God of the Gaps" target. From what I've seen, creationists now mostly focus on three subjects: 1) the origin of the universe, 2) the origin of the first life on earth, and 3) intelligence. All three are subjects of the "Oh yeah, well how do you explain X then" tactic.

I wonder how that theology student, having asked you that question, should proceed when they hear your reply in full view of the rest of the class...

Again, try and keep up. I only posted the above after you and DNG began discussing intelligence.

Please, please no more explaining, no more apologies, no more "explanations" for your insults.

Seems like you see "creationist" as an insult. That's quite interesting.

Nice try but the post in which you made this prejudicial remarks was not a reply to anything I or DNG posted, it is a "root reply" no different to a reply to the OP itself, go and look for yourself, it has no context, it is just blurted out.

It was not a reply to anything he posted nor anything I posted, it did not address any specific point of mine in any preceding post and in fact you yourself even said this of it:

Um, that was the intent of my post, i.e., to ask you what your point is.

Yet you failed to explain what "point" it was that was unclear to you.

It was just a blatant prejudicial insult to creationists a large number of whom regularly participate in this very forum!

[Jose Fly]

Nice try but the post in which you made this prejudicial remarks

LOL...we'll see.

was not a reply to anything I or DNG posted, it is a "root reply" no different to a reply to the OP itself, go and look for yourself, it has no context, it is just blurted out.

It was not a reply to anything he posted nor anything I posted, it did not address any specific point of mine in any preceding post

All right, let's do this. But I also note that this is the third time I've had to go back and link to and quote posts to you, and in the previous two instances you failed to offer a rebuttal or apology.

HERE is your first reply to DNG (after he answered "intelligence" to the OP), in which you asked:

"I asked Is there a difference between this and random notes, random tempo, random pauses? and then I asked if so, then to what can we attribute these differences?

The first question has either yes or no as the answer, so lets start with that."

HERE is your second reply to DNG, in which you posed :

"So there's no way this could take place without intelligence, yes? that's a necessary part of the process? So intelligence is necessary for music but unintelligence is sufficient for intelligence, yes? is that true in your opinion?"

HERE is your third reply to DNG, in which you ask:

"Would you argue that a mass of fundamental particles and forces of electricity and gravitation possess intelligence? I think not. Yet we are told that from this, intelligence "emerged". Unintelligence can generate intelligence (it is claimed).

Can you give me an example of worm intelligence? how does one infer the presence of intelligence in worms?

After all that, I posted:

It's interesting to see how "intelligence" has become creationists' latest "God of the Gaps" target. From what I've seen, creationists now mostly focus on three subjects: 1) the origin of the universe, 2) the origin of the first life on earth, and 3) intelligence. All three are subjects of the "Oh yeah, well how do you explain X then" tactic.

So in my experience it's best to just cut that off right at the start by acknowledging that yes, all three of those are unsolved mysteries. We have some evidence and hypotheses for each, but none of them are anywhere near "settled science".

But the follow-up to that is to ask the creationist....so what? If there were no unsolved mysteries, we'd know everything there is to know and science would be finished.

Specific to intelligence, whether it be human, chimp, dolphin, corvid, or worm, there's much still to be learned about what it is, what causes it, and how it emerged.

And therefore..........?

Now, I don't know in what bizarro world anyone would argue that my post had nothing at all to do with what preceded it. If you want to actually assert that, I'm not sure what to say, especially in light of the fact that you ignored my initial reply to your OP HERE

Is there a difference between this and random notes, random tempo, random pauses

Yes.

if so, then to what can we attribute these differences?

Homo sapiens having the traits necessary to make music and musical instruments (e.g., opposable thumbs, stereoscopic vision, capacity for abstract thought).

So you can see, I mentioned things other than intelligence and you had nothing to say to that.

and in fact you yourself even said this of it:

Um, that was the intent of my post, i.e., to ask you what your point is.

Yet you failed to explain what "point" it was that was unclear to you.

Then allow me to clear it up for you. Your OP was a clear attempt to fish for someone to answer "intelligence", at which point you could then send the discussion down the God of the Gaps trail, which is littered with the sort of things I quoted from you above.

I spotted it right away (as I'm sure did others), that set you off, and now you're feigning offense to try and make yourself the victim. Exhibit A:

It was just a blatant prejudicial insult to creationists a large number of whom regularly participate in this very forum!

You're just ticked off because someone spoiled what you thought was a clever argument. Like I keep saying, you creationists desperately need new arguments; pretty much every one you make has been done to death.

So the "point" I was after was to see if you would try and deny the obvious....you were making the old and simple God of the Gaps argument. You did that and then tried to create a diversion by acting the victim.

[Diagoras]

Is there a difference between this and random notes, random tempo, random pauses - if so, then to what can we attribute these differences?

To an earthworm (for instance), there may well be no appreciable difference.

Someone suffering from severe music agnosia may similarly discern little difference.

However, pattern recognition has evolved over time from basic concepts such as estimating numbers of prey or predators, so recognising that a series of sounds isn’t random is a likely consequence of that primitive survival strategy.

[Inquirer]

Is there a difference between this and random notes, random tempo, random pauses - if so, then to what can we attribute these differences?

To an earthworm (for instance), there may well be no appreciable difference.

Someone suffering from severe music agnosia may similarly discern little difference.

However, pattern recognition has evolved over time from basic concepts such as estimating numbers of prey or predators, so recognising that a series of sounds isn’t random is a likely consequence of that primitive survival strategy.

Well I never heard of music agnosia, how fascinating!

Ahh yes, patterns! From where do they come...

[Diagoras]

Several sources, I suspect. Crystal lattices and pulsars will be formed differently from radio broadcasts and striped shirts.

[Clownboat]

Nice try but the post in which you made this prejudicial remarks

LOL...we'll see.

was not a reply to anything I or DNG posted, it is a "root reply" no different to a reply to the OP itself, go and look for yourself, it has no context, it is just blurted out.

It was not a reply to anything he posted nor anything I posted, it did not address any specific point of mine in any preceding post

All right, let's do this. But I also note that this is the third time I've had to go back and link to and quote posts to you, and in the previous two instances you failed to offer a rebuttal or apology.

HERE is your first reply to DNG (after he answered "intelligence" to the OP), in which you asked:

"I asked Is there a difference between this and random notes, random tempo, random pauses? and then I asked if so, then to what can we attribute these differences?

The first question has either yes or no as the answer, so lets start with that."

HERE is your second reply to DNG, in which you posed :

"So there's no way this could take place without intelligence, yes? that's a necessary part of the process? So intelligence is necessary for music but unintelligence is sufficient for intelligence, yes? is that true in your opinion?"

HERE is your third reply to DNG, in which you ask:

"Would you argue that a mass of fundamental particles and forces of electricity and gravitation possess intelligence? I think not. Yet we are told that from this, intelligence "emerged". Unintelligence can generate intelligence (it is claimed).

Can you give me an example of worm intelligence? how does one infer the presence of intelligence in worms?

After all that, I posted:

It's interesting to see how "intelligence" has become creationists' latest "God of the Gaps" target. From what I've seen, creationists now mostly focus on three subjects: 1) the origin of the universe, 2) the origin of the first life on earth, and 3) intelligence. All three are subjects of the "Oh yeah, well how do you explain X then" tactic.

So in my experience it's best to just cut that off right at the start by acknowledging that yes, all three of those are unsolved mysteries. We have some evidence and hypotheses for each, but none of them are anywhere near "settled science".

But the follow-up to that is to ask the creationist....so what? If there were no unsolved mysteries, we'd know everything there is to know and science would be finished.

Specific to intelligence, whether it be human, chimp, dolphin, corvid, or worm, there's much still to be learned about what it is, what causes it, and how it emerged.

And therefore..........?

Now, I don't know in what bizarro world anyone would argue that my post had nothing at all to do with what preceded it. If you want to actually assert that, I'm not sure what to say, especially in light of the fact that you ignored my initial reply to your OP HERE

Is there a difference between this and random notes, random tempo, random pauses

Yes.

if so, then to what can we attribute these differences?

Homo sapiens having the traits necessary to make music and musical instruments (e.g., opposable thumbs, stereoscopic vision, capacity for abstract thought).

So you can see, I mentioned things other than intelligence and you had nothing to say to that.

and in fact you yourself even said this of it:

Um, that was the intent of my post, i.e., to ask you what your point is.

Yet you failed to explain what "point" it was that was unclear to you.

Then allow me to clear it up for you. Your OP was a clear attempt to fish for someone to answer "intelligence", at which point you could then send the discussion down the God of the Gaps trail, which is littered with the sort of things I quoted from you above.

I spotted it right away (as I'm sure did others), that set you off, and now you're feigning offense to try and make yourself the victim. Exhibit A:

It was just a blatant prejudicial insult to creationists a large number of whom regularly participate in this very forum!

You're just ticked off because someone spoiled what you thought was a clever argument. Like I keep saying, you creationists desperately need new arguments; pretty much every one you make has been done to death.

So the "point" I was after was to see if you would try and deny the obvious....you were making the old and simple God of the Gaps argument. You did that and then tried to create a diversion by acting the victim.

I admire your patience! Way to not get dragged off topic.
Pretending to be a victim in place of responding to debate questions does not go unnoticed.

[Jose Fly]

I admire your patience! Way to not get dragged off topic.
Pretending to be a victim in place of responding to debate questions does not go unnoticed.

Thanks! I interpret a lot of that sort of thing (e.g., playing victim) as a result of some folks losing a debate but refusing to accept it.

[Bust Nak]

Is there a difference between this and random notes, random tempo, random pauses - if so, then to what can we attribute these differences?

Are you asking about the composition or the performance? I think the answer may differ depending on that context.
In terms of composition, it's different to random notes, random tempo, random pauses because it is pleasing to us.
In terms of performance, it's different to random notes, random tempo, random pauses because it follows a score.