NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
Gary, do please pay attention to what any definition has to do.
A definition segregates the world into things that 'pass' the definition and 'everything else'.
It is pointless, worse, it is useless, to claim to have a definition of something where only some of those things meet the definition.
It may sometimes be useful, even acceptable, to offer up definitions that include the things defined and some other things which turn out to need to be excluded. This is how definitions are refined and improved.
It is rarely, if ever, useful to offer up a 'definition' that allows entire classes of examples to be excluded.
Operationalizing a definition is certainly a pre-requisite to scientifically refining the definition(s) in question. Otherwise what you have is of no use to anyone.
We've repeatedly seen that your "model" fails precisely because you want to claim that your 'circuit diagram' defines 'intelligence' yet we are able to trivially produce examples of things/acts that generally counts as intelligence that do not fall into line with your diagram.
That your problems merely compound from there is a topic we can pursue once you are able to unequivocally provide a definition that will fit all and only those acts that properly count as intelligent.
Until then, well, as your every post makes obvious, you do not know what you are talking about.
|
