N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 05 2015,00:56) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,00:14) | | Try reading AND understanding Gary: The "something to control" has always been there, and it's always been wrong, and we've always complained about it. Also, no one is trying to 'disembody' gravity from the universe (or to embody it either - the combination of concepts makes no sense). |
Only someone desperate for finding a problem where none exists would argue that modeling intelligence does not require some sort of (could be robotic) body/chassis/platform (or virtual representation that at least has sensory and motor actions that allow it to communicate with words or voice).
You will need to show me your working model, before I'll believe that crap.
And keep your crazy religious ideas about a disembodied God out of things. You cannot even produce a disembodied ID Lab critter. The best you'll get is an empty virtual arena with nothing in it. How you cannot grasp this common sense logic is a bit tragic, but mostly funny. |
You are being clueless once again, Gary. We are not objecting to you creating a model in which supposed intelligence controls something. That's fine. Lots of intelligence is put to use controlling stuff - no one says otherwise. We are objecting to you DEFINING intelligence as REQUIRING having something to control, because that excludes many behaviors that epitomize intelligence. Stop arguing with the voices in your head, and start responding to people who are trying to talk with you.
No one says your model has to compose a symphony, but it is crazy to define intelligence in such a way that composing a symphony can be excluded from being an act of intelligence.
And again, no one has to come up with a model showing the sun rising in the east to refute a model that asserts that the sun rises in the west. Your model is self-evidently wrong all on its own.
|
