Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 22 2012,00:57)|
|Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 22 2012,00:30)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin]Popper philosophy and your religion based conclusions to try getting out of having to address the model which references to:|
David L. Heiserman
[URL=http://www.beam-wiki.org/wiki/Heiserman @ _David_L.)
Arnold Trehub, especially Chapter 9, Page 158, Fig 9.3
You have no better model to show, nothing at all to help pioneer developing fields. Instead stomp on them so they are not taken seriously like they should have been right along.
Gary, can you not see how disclaiming falsifiability and also calling for critics to attempt to falsify your work is inconsistent, if not contradictory?
Then YOU explain
Why should we have to explain anything?
how intelligence works using a high school level model
Especially this. In other words, why should we try to explain something to you when you lack even the level of scientific education you want to talk about.
that applies to all known intelligence levels (molecular, cellular, multicellular)!
Further, why should we have to explain something that we don't think is correct?
Show circuit and algorithm, along with evidence that your model came from established cognitive science experts.
Again, why? We should we do your work for us?
You don't get it, but it's actually up to you to defend your notions. Not us.
Edited by OgreMkV on Nov. 22 2012,07:18
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.