GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
| Quote (Henry J @ May 10 2015,22:32) | | Or if not particular pieces of evidence, then describe the patterns of evidence that if observed would indicate some value to the vaguely described concepts (said patterns would need to be distinct from the patterns already covered by established theories). |
This theory explains a computer model for a pattern of systematic levels where in between the behavior of matter and the brain are two incredibly complex systems that easily qualify as intelligent at the cellular and molecular (genome) levels.
A pattern of identical systematics for each level makes all in biology much easier to accurately model. You're otherwise stuck with a model that does not have a multiple of systems with the same basic systematics to qualify intelligence with. Theory meant for modeling intelligence shows what to look for instead of being lost not knowing where to even begin modeling all in biology, from the behavior of matter on up to us.
Darwinian theory and its EA's are to model "evolution" not "intelligence". It's the wrong theory to use in a "put the cart before the horse" way. The model for intelligence must come first, then Darwinian theory becomes an outside view of what on its own develops over time in its virtual environment without even needing "selection" and other variables.
--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
|
