|Wesley R. Elsberry
Joined: May 2002
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,21:04)|
|Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,20:43)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,20:14)|
|Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,19:39)|
|You are using the same phrase, yes. But you just noted that they have different definitions. "Go" can mean directed movement to a destination, a board game, or even bodily waste excretion. The meanings differ, and the significance to discussion can critically differ.|
The scientific concept of Prof. Zhang that he calls "molecular intelligence" is doing artificial intelligence with molecular computing. Saying "It is a scientific concept" when "it" refers to Prof. Zhang's concept is true.
However, that "it" and your conception of "molecular intelligence" are not the same thing. It is not the *same* "it" as your "it". Referencing Prof. Zhang does nothing at all to support your claim that "it", meaning your concept that you call "molecular intelligence", has any scientific basis or validity whatsoever. You have to substantiate that in some other fashion for it to be valid.
But thanks for at least acknowledging that you and Prof. Zhang have defined your concepts in a different way. I see that as a sort of breakthrough moment in your history of discussion with other people.
You didn't even know about them until now. And how everyone at the School of Computer Science and Engineering defines it does not matter to a model where there is simply an algorithm/circuit at that intelligence level, not opinion made by my stringing words together.
I went to your provided link to determine if it actually supported *your* concept.
It supported a *different* concept that is known by the same phrase you use.
You are right that how Prof. Zhang defines "molecular intelligence" does not matter a bit to a different concept called by the same phrase. That is precisely why linking to Prof. Zhang's work does not support your claim that your concept is scientific, because one concept *has nothing to do with the other*.
It doesn't matter one bit that I had no prior familiarity with Prof. Zhang and his work. You should note that I have not complained in past posts about your use of the phrase "molecular intelligence" as a name for your concept. What matters is that you have not and are not supporting the claim you made *about* your concept, which is defined differently from Prof. Zhang's concept.
You sure must be a genius to have in that short amount of time at least a little bit familiarized yourself with all the homework they have for you there.
I have no idea what your operational definition for "scientific concept" is but I'm not surprised you believe it is not one and I'm now stuck in yet another semantics argument with you. Now you need straw-man argument to make it appear that my also easily accounting for what deserves the scientific name "molecular intelligence" is a problem, instead of another indication that this theory is in fact a very good model of reality.
I opened Prof. Zhang's first lecture PowerPoint file. Within just a few slides, it introduced his concept of "molecular intelligence". Prof. Zhang is a good communicator; I was able to apprise myself of what he was talking about very quickly, and that he was talking about something different from what you talk about when *you* say, "molecular intelligence".
Equivocation is not an approach to modeling reality, Gary.
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker