NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 01 2014,23:22) | | Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 01 2014,20:31) | | You don't have to be concerned about your "theory" and Humpty-Dumpty definitions being thrown out of science. You have to get in first. |
Intelligence Design Lab
Submitted on: 11/22/2011 5:26:39 PM
http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1
| Quote | | The computer model also provides a precise, testable and scientifically useful operational definition for "intelligent cause" where each of the three emergent levels can be individually modeled, with a model predicted to be possible that generates an intelligent causation event, now goal of further research and challenge for all. |
That's the only thing I needed to scientifically win the "big-tent" competition. Needing more than that only moving the goalposts to where no winner is possible. |
Bullshit.
No model provides operational definitions. Models are built from operational definitions -- that's where the 'operational' part comes in.
Your computer model, so called, is as scientifically useful as pac-man or space invaders.
It has zero evidentiary value for any theory on which it might be modeled, although we have all noted with vast amusement that there are few if any links between your "theory" and your software.
You are not modeling individuals in any biological sense.
You are not modeling emergence.
You are not modeling levels of anything, let alone the interconnected complex systems from which interesting things emerge.
You are not modeling intelligence in any sense of the term.
You are not modeling causation.
The goalposts remain right where they've always been -- not even in the direction you're looking.
We have a number of acts of intelligence that we have presented over the past years, none of which can be accommodated by your "theory".
We have presented decisive counters to some of the key claims of your "theory".
We have shown that your "theory" is built on misuse of terms, ambiguity, incoherent, self-contradiction, falsehoods and errors. There is no there there.
Contra your nonsense:
molecules as such do not learn. You've recently even acknowledged this, but have yet to repair the hole this blows in a foundational 'layer' of your "theory"
acts of intelligence do not inherently involve or require motor control
'learn' does not mean what you think it means as exemplified by your assertions that use the term coupled with your insistence to be 'doing' Cognitive Science
'evaluation' and 'guess' are both terms that allow you to smuggle intelligence into your system. You have to account for them, and you don't. So, you don't have an explanation for intelligence, for you use the thing itself in the so-called explanation. Automatic fail.
Not all intelligent action can be described as the result of a guess. Your "theory" fails to account for plans, planning, the generation, modification, maintenance, and occasional abandonment of plans. 'Guess' does not do the job.
Etc.
Nothing in your software can possibly help you overcome the conceptual barriers noted above. Most particularly, your software cannot provide an evidentiary basis for making claims on matters it does not include. Insofar as it does, that's another automatic fail. It is as if the software developer of space invaders were to claim a prize for SETI success based on the development and use of the game.
It is delusional to believe otherwise.
|
