NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 16 2015,06:59) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 15 2015,19:45) |
But your program doesn't do any of the major things mentioned there.
| Quote | | An EA uses mechanisms inspired by biological evolution, such as reproduction, mutation, recombination, and selection. |
Yours does none of that. |
The full "model" does indeed reproduce.
And the biggest problem for you is that generalizations such as "selection" are like having pull-strings on plastic dolls of humans and other animals that are supposed to be intelligent. After pulling their sting they might say "mommy" or "moo" and occasionally a new plastic doll pops out, but it's scientifically absurd to suggest that such toys explain the origin of intelligence and how living things work. |
So what about your undefined, undemonstrated, vague generalization "intelligence"?
You can't even decide if it's required at all 4 "levels" you assert, without support, in your "theory".
It's shown as required in your far-too-often repeated diagram, yet you back away from the claim when confronted with real world examples such as Stephen Hawking.
Problems, real or imagined, with any other models are entirely irrelevant to the existence of the real, demonstrable problems with your assertions.
Likewise with respect to the existence of the real, demonstrable dishonesty displayed in your rejoinders to perfectly reasonable objections to your nonsense.
|
