Jaihakim;

I don't care how much you worship dawkins, science has never, ever, definied a gene that is responsible for selfishness. There is no such thing as a selfish gene, what you are talking about is a psychological state. People have spent over 25 years trying to isolate the genes that cause hereditary diseases, for example, and even now the most they can do is narrow it down to a group, within which are the ones that cause them, but further pinpointing has so far eluded them. You can prove me wrong at any time by providing me with a full explanation of where this gene is in the DNA chain and how it specifically affects selfishness. Until then, psychological assumptions have no place in a 'scientific' theory. If it is a psychological debate, say so, do not try and say it is either scientific or mathematical. Got it?

You are blinding yourself with your stubbornness over this then ironically telling others that your mixture of bald faced assertions with no backup and philosophy you try and pass off as proof, is some kind of scientific method. It isn't.

Your assertions are based on assumptions that are questionable yet you refuse to be questioned on them. Frankly, I couldn't care less how convinced you are by them, it is irrelevant to their validity. You say it is not a religious issue then assert that your belief is some kind of proof. You have been asked to back them up and have failed to do so, brushing aside such questions as if they were irrelevant. They are not, and your attitude of blaming others for their 'lack of understanding' is unacceptable .

On top of that you are dishonest, passing off things that haven't been invented yet as valid scientific achievements. Example;

Quote:
It has been scientifically designed, by observing and analyzing zillions of Turing Machines

I have worked with AI and what you would call turing machines. Since no such machine exists we just call them computers and one has not been invented yet with the ability to create another one or with many of the other powers you ascribe to it, and even if it had, you would have been very unlikely to have ever worked on it. Prove me wrong, show me you work for some institute developing AI and similar; until then I don't believe you have adequate knowledge of the field to bring it into your judgements. Not only do you try and ascribe truth to this abstract concept when there is none, it's a really crap example to demonstrate our 'theory' anyway since they don't exist to duplicate your 'analysis' and verify your claims.

You're so wrapped up in pushing your theory, which smacks more than a little of a religious standpoint (reading purpose into things that just exist as if they were part of some great plan), that you can't see the wood for the trees.

Sorry, I tried working with you, but I am not prepared to do so any more, until you start being a bit more gracious to the valid criticisms and logical fallacies shown by others. You would be laughed out of any academy if you tried to pass your homespun philosophy off as either science or maths - so far you have made no attempt to even resolve it in a set of mathematical assertions, or formally specifed them as sets, or any other notation used in logic and maths, or even listed the assumptions you have based your assertions on, you just come out with bald faced statements and expect to be believed, and then get upset when people call you out on using terms incorrectly and go rushing ahead with your assertions before stating the assumptions on which they are based. People like Tildy can wipe me off the map when it comes to maths, but I can easily debunk your assertions without even resorting to a mathematical notation, and so can many others here.

Your two stupid laws are mutually exclusive and nothing more than philosophy anyway. They cannot work together even as a logical construct, yet still you try and push them as if they had any kind of validity outside your mind. You have failed to quantify any of the attributes you ascribe to them or even explain very well what they are, yet claim you are adopting a scientific approach. You are not. And it's that simple. I am no longer prepared to work with you unless you start working with me and others who have questioned you.

Clear enough? Sort your head out, boy, and don't piss on the people who try and help and tell them it's raining.
"All governments suffer a recurring problem - power attracts pathological personalities. It is not power that corrupts, but that power is a magnet to the corruptible" - Dune, Missionaria Protectiva.