NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2016,16:06) | From introduction:
| Quote | | Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. [3] Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail. [4] Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”. |
What N.Wells thinks of how the science works out is irrelevant to the theory. I am not obligated to use terminology that they prefer, which for the most part came out of a dictionary not a scientific model for demonstrating how intelligence of any kind works. |
Bullshit again.
You are obligated to meaningfully communicate.
To seriously attempt to assert that scientific terminology grew out of recourse to dictionaries rather than the interactive, generative, living process of technical language between technical participants is insane. Barking mad in fact.
You can use whatever terminology you bloody well choose to. The particular words and phrases, tortured and abused as they are, that you prefer, have not done well by you.
NO ONE other than you finds meaning or utility in them.
They are vague, incoherent, mutually conflicting if not contradictory, and most of all, an impediment to both clear thinking and clear communication.
Everything you're going on about so far on this page is a tired rehash of material that has already been quite exhaustively ripped apart and tossed in the rubbish bin, on the merits.
Repeating without ever addressing the nearly countless rejoinders, questions, critiques, and bludgeoning verbal assaults that have reduced this nonsense to a heap of smoldering rubbish does not help you in the slightest.
Your multi-circle diagram is laughable. It might as well be something scrawled on the wall of an insane asylum by a lunatic armed only with his feces.
We've been over it, repeatedly. It has never once survived the encounter.
Try answering the direct questions. Try doing so without simply directing the questioners back to the original material about which the questions are being asked and the objections are being raised.
You won't because you can't. The only support you have is the warm comfy glow of smug satisfied self-importance you, and you alone, derive from your effluent.
We can say that safe and secure in the knowledge that you have convinced no one of the merit of your efforts.
We can also say that, of course, in the comfort and security of having disproved the few bits that are meaningful as well as having shown the rest to be neither meaningful nor insightful nor well-informed.
It's not so much that history will forget you and your work. It's that neither you nor your work will ever be noticed at all.
|
