uptightbiped said: "What can be said to someone who simply refuses the observations? What can be said to someone who summarily rejects the one proven method of finding the very thing she claims to be looking for? Honestly, what else can be said?"
Well, uptight, since that person is you (and your IDiot comrades), how about FUCK YOU? Your dishonest, childish games are the problem, not Elizabeth Liddle's reasonable and immensely patient quest for an IDiot's definition of information.
And to show what a liar and repugnant asshole you are (as if it needed any more confirmation) here are a couple of your recent, contradictory comments:
"In any case, I have come to the end of my contributions in trying to describe the phenomena of information."
"..................... With that said, I thank you for the talk and bid you farewell."
And after Dr. Liddle continued to try to work out an agreeable definition of information, with no response from you, she asked: "Well, as Upright BiPed has lost interest, is anyone else interested in taking up my challenge?" to which you responded with:
"Dr Liddle, your characterization of my involvement in this conversation as “having lost interest” is not only patently opportunistic, it is also intellectually repugnant. It is exactly the kind of output from Darwinian ideologues that has been documented at UD for years on end, even if those putting it up are nice little old ladies practicing neuroscience in the United Kingdom.
In truth, my wife and I have had a medical emergency with our 21 year old daughter for the past two days, and is it happens, concerning myself with some tomography and a spinal tap was slightly higher on my list than debating with you."
So, uptightshitface, you lost interest (actually ran away because you weren't getting away with your ridiculous games), but when it was correctly pointed out that you lost interest you made up another story just so that you could insult EL and "Darwinian ideologues" even more, and try to blame her for not being a psychic (telepathically knowing that your alleged daughter was allegedly ill). What's "repugnant" is you using your alleged daughter as an excuse for your own cowardice and stupidity.
I say that you're making the whole spinal tap story up, and that you're a childish brat who is pissed and having a tantrum because you aren't smart enough to even define the "information" you IDiots claim is in living things, that is allegedly detectable, measurable, and demonstrable by using the so-called "ID theory".
One way or another, both of your excuses for leaving can't be true, and you're only responding again now because you're a jerk who wants the last IDiotic word.
And I see that you've conjured up yet another term, "recorded information", and you say:
"At the very start of this conversation, I made the remark that the search for an operational definition is just as fallible as any other of man’s good ideas. Dr Liddle wondered at the time what I meant by that. Apparently it never occurred to her that asking the questions might not be the problem. In any case, it should not go un-noticed that the person who is struggling against all odds to find a way to detect recorded information is the same Dr Liddle who ignores how it has been found before – every time it’s been found before."
You IDiots are the ones struggling against all odds to weasel out of having any of your claims tested, and it has certainly been noticed by science and its supporters.
Don't you think it would be a good idea to at least define the information you claim can be detected, measured, calculated, and demonstrated by using "ID theory"? It's obvious that you don't think so, and that's why your so-called 'theory' will never be scientific or accepted by science.
