NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 30 2015,21:15) | | Quote (Woodbine @ June 30 2015,19:52) | The request isn't for your explanation of intelligence.
Nor is it for your explanation of 'intelligent cause'.
The request is for you to provide your explanation of 'how one intelligence level causes another'.
See the difference? |
Intelligent cause is the cause of one intelligence level causing another. Therefore understanding how intelligent cause works explains how one intelligence level causes another.
You are just playing a circular word game, that adds up to your talking nonsense again. |
ROFLMAO!!
Gary has exceeded himself here. Well, more so than usual at least.
This is actually perfectly consistent with Gary's "theory" and his "explanations" -- he is literally unable to see the circularity and inherent contradictions in his approach.
His blindness to these core flaws is compounded by his inability to comprehend the notion of 'multiple realizability'. That a process can be modeled by X does not mean that the process is, in fact, accomplished by X nor that X is the sole means by which the process can be accomplished.
I pointed this out a couple of hundred pages ago -- we can model the flight path of a baseball, or the trajectory needed for an eagle at point a to catch a fish expected to be at point b, using calculus. This does not mean that the person who views, or predicts, the path of the baseball, nor the eagle who successfully catches the fish, performs calculus or understands its function or usage.
Gary would have us believe otherwise.
But of course Gary believes that because all the intelligence we know of is made up of molecules then all molecules are intelligent in and of themselves. And that this is somehow an instance or example of emergence.
Totally loony, and a pathetic failure, that's our Gary.
|
