NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 03 2015,02:00) | | Quote (NoName @ Aug. 02 2015,06:48) | | As has been shown repeatedly, your usage requires a radical redefinition from standard usage and especially the standard usage in Cognitive Science. |
As I have been repeatedly showing the problem is primarily from others not being up to date on what's now happening in cognitive science, where a unifying model able to establish standard usage of terms between its subfields (AI, neuroscience, psychology, etc) does not even exist yet. |
False to fact.
You've been incoherently asserting, not showing that your respondents are not up to speed with Cognitive Science. Indeed, what you've shown is that you are almost entirely ignorant of the field.
| Quote | ...
The only thing for sure is that cognitive science has only just begun to establish standard terminology for all fields.
|
Which rather contradicts your previous point about there being no current grounds for establishing common terminology.
But the concept represented by the word 'learn' and its variants is neither new nor under any sort of sustained change by Cognitive Science. It is, in fact, standard terminology, within and outside of Cognitive Science.
Your usage violates the standard meanings and directly contradict the concepts involved.
| Quote | ...
Terminology that fell into place like "molecular (level) intelligence" is required in theory that predicts its existence by ahead of time explaining how intelligence at that level works. |
Except, of course, that you have no explanation for it, and no justification for fantasizing such an element. It is neither predicted by nor entailed by your "theory" as we have shown repeatedly. The notion, as you attempt to use it, is incoherent, unnecessary, and, frankly, quite insane.
It is an artifact of your inability to accept or conceptualize the reality that just because all intelligence is founded in molecular assemblies there is no need to assert that molecules as such are intelligent. You resist this fundamental truth quite vigorously for a man of your, ahem, limited skills.
If you had the faintest clue what 'emergent' means, you wouldn't have quite the problem here that you manifestly do have. But then, the evidence that you completely fail to comprehend emergence litters your long-standing presence on the web.
| Quote | In this case it's scientifically impossible to remove something like that from the logical construct of the theory that needs it that way to stay coherent everywhere else.
|
False to fact, as the previous 8+ years on the net, and 490+ pages here, demonstrate quite conclusively. To say nothing of the fact that your "theory" is most emphatically not coherent, anywhere else. It is no more a 'logical construct' than Jabberwocky. Quite a bit less so, in fact.
The evidence surrounds you but, being evidence, you reject it.
| Quote | | ... There is no scientific issue in any of the fields of science. ... |
Yet another gem, fully up there with your assertion that your "theory" encompasses all of science. You're a lunatic Gary.
Deal with it.
|
