NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 10 2015,16:16) | | Quote (N.Wells @ May 10 2015,06:54) | | Note that the article talks cautiously about "may in the future", "rudimentary", "still don't exhibit something that you would call learning", and so on. |
The headline reads:
| Quote | Computer-simulated life forms evolve intelligence
Computer-simulated life forms which reproduce themselves inside their electronic world have evolved to produce basic intelligence. |
|
Argument by headline.
How impressive.
I'd ask 'are you really that stupid?' but we all know you are.
Across the board, it doesn't matter what flaws or failures you think you see elsewhere. The question is what does your stuff do, what evidence does it have, what logical structure, what explanatory force, what acceptance by the knowledgable, what difference does it make.
For your work, the answer all amount to 'nil'. You've got nothing, no one's accepting your effluent as anything other than tiresome and light-years from being scientific. You've got no evidence, you've got no definitions, you've got no entailments (well, some can be tortured out of your various stances, but the result is never good for you).
Explain, using only your theory, the process by which a theory is conceptualized originally.
roflmao
|
