N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 03 2015,16:55) | The answers to my questions are very revealing:
| Quote | Gary S. Gaulin - February 3, 2015 at 6:44 am
Fifthmonarchyman it would be helpful for you to explain what you did understand, as opposed to suggesting that you could not understand anything at all then try to get rid of me.
According to the theory:
How is intelligence systematically qualified?
In the computer model how is intelligence detected?
What is the primary mechanism responsible for the Cambrian Explosion? |
| Quote | fifthmonarchyman - February 3, 2015 at 4:18 pm
Gary Gaulin says,
it would be helpful for you to explain what you did understand as opposed to suggesting that you could not understand anything at all then try to get rid of me.
I say,
It would be helpful if you would put together a short summery of your idea. You should be able to do so in just a few minutes. I don’t need details at this point just give me the highlights
I’m not trying to get rid of you. I’m trying to help you out. If you don’t want my advise fine. I tried.
No offense but Your work appears to me to be mostly gibberish with a few sciencey words sprinkled around. That does not mean that it is gibberish it merely means that I have no entrance point to begin to tackle it.
I’m not in a position to answer your questions about a theory that I don’t understand. Instead of asking me those questions why don’t you sit down and give me the answers along with a few elaborating sentences.
Who knows your answers might be a start to a good abstract.
peace |
|
He's absolutely correct that your stuff comes across as largely illiterate garbage.
Your work is indeed an incoherent morass of science-y sounding words that cannot actually make sense if taken together in their usual senses. We've been complaining about that since the beginning of the thread.
I also note that you and your pile of reeking verbiage give no indication that you are able to answer your own damn questions, so it is unclear why anyone else should bother - it's not like you have provided any evidence or logic that gives any support to your assertions, which might entice someone to look into your stuff any more deeply.
| Quote | This is one example of what fifthmonarchyman is unable to understand:
| Quote | A behavior qualifies as intelligent behavior by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] body (or modeling platform) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic “write” to a screen) to control, [2] memory addressed by sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are separate data elements, [3] confidence (central hedonic, homeostasis) system that increments (stored in memory) confidence value of a successful motor action else decrements the confidence value, [4] guess new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases (and if not prerandomized motor data then when first addressed). For flagella powered cells reversing motor direction can produce a tumble to a new heading direction, guess where to go.
The IBM Watson system that won at Jeopardy qualifies as intelligent. Word combinations for hypotheses were guessed then tested against memory for confidence in each being a hypothesis that is true, and whether confident enough in its best answer to “push the buzzer”. The Watson platform simply had a speaker (for vocal muscles) and muscles guiding a pen was simulated by an electric powered writing device. |
After several years of the same old excuses it’s obvious that several more years of rewriting the theory (after already having added several illustrations algorithmically showing the above information as well as computer models showing this in code) is a waste of time on those who want nothing to do with science. |
There's no reason for him to understand that, and no one needs to waste time trying to answer your questions until you put your heap of rubbish into comprehensible English. It is your responsibility to explain your ideas clearly, and not anyone else's to explain it to you. YOU have to show that it is worth studying, and all that you've done so far has achieved EXACTLY the opposite effect. No one can understand your stuff, because some of it is too ungrammatical to be clearly interpreted (e.g., items #1, 3, & 4), and some of it doesn't make sense even when given the benefit of the doubt. What you listed cannot be the distinguishing characteristics of intelligence, because they exclude phenomena that are generally considered to be at the acme of intelligence, such as composing a symphony, imagining a painting, planning your life, thinking up an explanation, or evaluating a theory (or even just planning a bank robbery), while including autofocus mechanisms and Neato vacuum cleaners.
| Quote | You've got no room [to] talk.
You're not only intellectually lazy and ignorant*, you are dishonest on top of it.
Get help. You need it. |
Seconded.
[* of biology and English. Getting a computer program to work is not insignificant, and fixing a mass spectrometer also indicates technical smarts and skills. Do yourself a huge favor and concentrate on stuff that you are actually competent at. This isn't it.]
|
