N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 25 2015,22:15) | | Quote (Woodbine @ May 25 2015,19:17) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 25 2015,13:33) | | ....that should give the critter the intuitive ability to from experience predict.... |
Predicting things based on evidence is not intuition. |
I have no evidence against intuition being a learned response. The theory predicts instinct is from a billions of year old learning process. |
What a mess, Gary. You are jumping between minor non-technical meanings of words and are as a result making your usual hash of things.
Intuition is the result of things like subconscious summation of past experience plus analogies (finding similarities with previously encountered patterns, re-using previously successful conclusions, etc.), all learned all over a lifetime, without recourse to much in the way of rational consideration or algorithms. Basing a prediction on intuition is effectively jumping to a conclusion, going with stereotypical thinking, relying on analogies, or making an educated guess.
Prediction based on evidence is far more rational, conscious, and algorithmic. It implies at minimum a rational consideration of the evidence.
Both of those are different from instinct. Instinct is a biologically predetermined, genetically based, innate, wired-in, fixed behavior. One could say that instinct is the application of the entire lineage's experience as "learned" through survival and propagation of the individuals with the best responses, but that's a metaphorical use of "learned": it makes much more sense to say that an instinctive response is a behavior that is NOT based on learning and the individual's prior experiences. Individuals learn through experience, lineages evolve through drift and adaptation.
Although I would agree that instincts are accumulated and refined over very long periods (but mostly tens of thousands to hundreds of millions of years rather than billions), your set of concepts is not a theory, and nothing you have presented justifies the prediction or conclusion that "instinct" is from a "process of learning" nor that that process occurred over billions of years. Behaviors that ancient and primitive are going to fall into the categories of taxes and reflexes rather than instincts.
In fact your stuff really doesn't make any predictions because it isn't sufficiently coherent. Your model perhaps has something to say about foraging, but it does not address lineages, or origins of intelligence. You have not yet demonstrated that intelligence exists at all the levels you claim, or that there is anything to gain by misapplying terminology from individuals to lineages, animals to cells and molecules, and so on and so forth.
| Quote | | For me to know what you are trying to say you'll have to explain the origin of intuitive abilities such as instinct, how to model them. |
You really don't get the whole concept of living up to your own principles, do you? We have a hard time following what you are saying because you say everything incoherently, and you (and your not-a-theory) don't explain anything: you just make assertions.
Also, the concept of something not being understandable until it is modelled is distinctly peculiar.
|
