NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 08 2014,08:45) | | Quote (N.Wells @ July 07 2014,07:53) | | Quote | | It just annoys someone who does not see the scientific challenge in developing novel theory that does in fact make the Darwinian view a big yawn in comparison. Thinking that way is being as scientific as science gets. |
Of course there is scientific value in developing a new theory, but science requires such methods as providing strict definitions, correctly reviewing and understanding past work, collecting pertinent evidence (including measurements, observations, and/or experiments), testing multiple working hypotheses, and providing a logically coherent explanation for the results, none of which you are doing. So no, you are not being "as scientific as science gets": quite the opposite, in fact.
| Quote | | novel theory that does in fact make the Darwinian view a big yawn in comparison |
It's not a theory and, no, it doesn't do that. |
I'm the one stuck having to gather evidence and test the model while you chant the usual that makes it seem like you are. |
Why is that a problem?
Do you seriously believe that you can proceed forward with no evidence?
Do you seriously believe that you have any evidence?
Do you seriously believe that it matters what others do while you work at the foundations of the edifice you're claiming to be gilding the roof of?
| Quote | | The problem is that machine intelligence 101 is not good enough for you. Instead of putting something better on the table to explain the phenomenon of intelligent cause you need a tribunal where you declare what is machine intelligence 101 while reciting sciency sounding political slogans back-up by academic snobbery. |
Same old same old.
You don't have 'machine intelligence', let alone at the introductory college level. You keep making claims for 'learning' that fly in the face of the accepted and canonical definitions of the term as used by Cognitive Science.
Worse is your absurdist insistence that you have something that others are required to produce something 'better than' in order to 'overcome' your nonsense.
As we will never cease pointing out, that's not how it works.
It is sufficient to point out that your work, where correct, is banal, lacks any original insight, and is founded on precisely zero evidence. Where your work is not banal, lacking in original insight as well as evidence, it is either wrong or so incoherent as to count as 'not even wrong'.
The past 375+ pages stand as testament to those facts.
What more do we need?
Nothing.
What more do you need?
Everything that is expected of actual science. From evidence to engagement with criticism.
| Quote | | This is what testing a theory looks like, where one of the problems needing to be solved is evident by the overwhelming number of subjective definitions for intelligence: |
Why no, no it's not.
The 'overwhelming number of subjective definitions for intelligence[sic]' is your problem, nobody else's. It is telling that you cannot even distinguish use from reference in your writing. Intelligence does not need a definition, 'intelligence' does. You have never experienced the former and misuse and abuse the latter at every opportunity, even ones you have to force.
You claim to be doing research on intelligence, yet you have not once provided a description or definition of the term 'intelligence' that holds up to even momentary scrutiny.
Your model, insofar as your trivial sketch counts as a model, is demonstrably false. It purports essential features that do not exist as any part of acts considered to be intelligent. Still less does it get to the core abstraction of just what shall count as 'intelligent'.
Epic fail, Gary, 375+ pages of epic fail and cogent criticism pointing out that tragic fact.
|
