GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
| Quote (N.Wells @ May 02 2018,19:40) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 01 2018,23:00) |
| Quote (N.Wells @ May 01 2018,09:58) | | ROM is by definition Read Only Memory, so by definition it can't be written to or modified once set and it can't learn by lucky accident. |
ROM's are "written to or modified" by the producer/manufacturer who designed the system. That should have been an easy one for you. |
It was. That's why I said "once set" and specified change from outside the immediate system. |
In this case the system has multiple coexisting levels. This makes a phrase like "outside the immediate system" very ambiguous, and infers a Santa Claus type entity periodically delivering genetic ROMs to living things of this planet.
To be specific to systems ("i" word optional) you need to say "genetic level (intelligent) system" or "molecular level (intelligent) system".
The ink cloud in my thread came from using loaded words like yours. A cognitive model/theory requires being precise.
How words and phrases have to be used are not even under my control. All is dependent on the logical structure of the model and routine cognitive science terminology.
Talking about "natural selection" keeps changing the subject to a theory for something else. The best you get are metaphors to a simple cognitive system long ago best described by David Heiserman, which requires the word "guess" and other terminology only someone like you could find nonstandard or out of place in the proper field for explaining "intelligent" behavior of any kind.
I recall Jack Krebs having in his forum done a reasonably good job of debating the similarities between Darwinian theory and how we think. It was educationally helpful for me to have debated from the cognitive science perspective, which required me to be annoyingly precise with required terminology for that scientific area of study. There are valid similarities, it's OK to try finding some, but neuroscience and emerging subfields (from it now being known that cells have a mind or two of their own neuroscientists must now in ever increasing detail probe too) requires models that work inside the logical construct of neuroscience where words like "guess" applies instead of "mutation".
Considering how it is pointless for you to try making it seem like knowledge of Darwinian theory makes you a neuroscience expert and it is a waste of valuable time for me to entertain your attempt to do so I'll stop here and hope you can do a better job than "outside the immediate system" to describe what microscopes and neural probes are still aiming at, not suddenly pointing upward for detecting the image of Jesus or something.
--------------
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.
|
