|Wesley R. Elsberry
Joined: May 2002
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,02:41)|
William Dembski and the paper that used Avida are both trying to develop theory pertaining to intelligence by working in the opposite direction that I do. The method thinks in terms of "agents". Intelligence is somehow detected. For what it's worth to help get something started, that's all fine by me. And I hope this theory helps them discover something great from there, using their method. William likes to explore the science meets religion, and for all we know he might find something interesting. Science is much about putting yourself in the right place at the right time for discovery and reasons why you're there do not even matter. After long search that goes nowhere the miracle cure ends up found in a dirty sink from common bread mold. Only needed sloppy lab sterility procedures and to know what to look for, to make the "Eureka!" happen.
Intelligence theory on the scale of the Theory of Intelligent Design must first have the circuit and algorithm required to experiment with "intelligence" and (technology willing) "intelligent cause" events. Need a single cognitive model that covers human intelligence, cellular intelligence, molecular intelligence, and is a bonus to next be in String Theory where William might do well in because of liking amazingly complicated math formulas that the rest of us would rather avoid.
"The rest of us" did not avoid Dembski's math. You obviously either did not read or did not understand the first two links if you think that they indicate Dembski is on the verge of any discovery.
There is already a concept that broadly applies concerning cognitive models: the Church-Turing thesis. And the final link I provided fits right into that framework with identification of evolved effective methods.
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker