GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
| Quote (N.Wells @ June 19 2014,12:14) | | Quote |
Theory now reads this right after the all important first sentence of the intro:
| Quote |
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause whereby in biology a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level combine to create another (logos, animating) level of intelligence at the next size scale, which can in turn combine to cause another level of intelligence resulting in multiple self-similar entities at different size scales each systematically in their own image, likeness.
Intelligence is here defined as a behavior that through trial and error self-learns, which can be qualified by its 4 requirement systematics containing: 1; body/platform with muscles/motors to control, 2; sensory addressed memory to store motor actions, 3; confidence to gauge motor action failure or success, 4; ability to guess new motor action when something new is first encountered or confidence level in a recalled action sufficiently decreases. If a system meets 3 out of 4 requirements then it qualifies as protointelligent, as when sensors connect directly to the motors in a way that guides direction but does not self-learn how to control itself. Intelligence has a memory system between sensors and its motors to control, not direct connections. If memory contents can be monitored then intelligence is quantified by its measurable learning curve.
A trinity of intelligence levels cause all of our complex intelligence related behaviors to connect back to the behavior of matter, which does not need to be intelligent to be source of consciousness. There is reciprocal cause/causation in both forward and reverse directions, more specifically (where from behavior of matter) “behavioral cause/causation” or (where from intelligent behavior) “intelligent cause/causation”. |
It's hard to beat that, for giving you what you asked for.. |
To the contrary, it would be hard not to beat that. All of NoName's criticisms are valid objections, and in addition it is still written atrociously. It's word-salad, with many words not having their normal meaning. It ranges the gamut from awkward to ungrammatical. It's full of unsupported, and indeed unsupportable, assertions, and in places it is self-contradictory.
| Quote | | The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause whereby in biology a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level combine to create another (logos, animating) level of intelligence at the next size scale, which can in turn combine to cause another level of intelligence resulting in multiple self-similar entities at different size scales each systematically in their own image, likeness. |
Everything after "whereby" would help considerably, if we believed you about all the lower levels of intelligence that you assert, but we have no reason to buy into that delusion.
"Certain features" still destroys that sentence by virtue of its lack of specificity.
None of your entities are self-similar, and even if we were to grant all your levels of intelligence, they could not be self-similar. Intelligence in animals requires neurons. Molecules and cells do not have neurons. If we stretch metaphorical uses of memory and learning to cover what happens over generations of change in DNA in genomes, that is still unlike what happens in animal-level intelligence.
Minor problems:
"systematically in their own image" is uninterpretable.
"another (logos, animating) level" is unclear and ungrammatical, and it contradicts your ideas. If it is animating then causation cannot be working in both directions, and particularly not downward.
" image, likeness" is ungrammatical: use "or" or ", i.e. likeness".
'each in its' (each is singular).
| Quote | | Intelligence is here defined as a behavior that through trial and error self-learns, which can be qualified by its 4 requirement systematics containing: 1; body/platform with muscles/motors to control, 2; sensory addressed memory to store motor actions, 3; confidence to gauge motor action failure or success, 4; ability to guess new motor action when something new is first encountered or confidence level in a recalled action sufficiently decreases. |
Intelligence is a quality or capability, not a behavior (behavior can be intelligent, but intelligence per se is not a behavior.)
'learns through trial and error' ("self-learns" is redundant; your word order is awkward). At least you are finally attempting to provide a definition, even if it runs in the face of most definitions of intelligent (if you try to pass an intelligence test by trial and error, your intelligence quotient is not going to be very high).
Your criteria are not the standard definition of intelligence, are not sufficiently related to what you just said about trial and error learning, and leave out a lot of clearly intelligent behavior. For example, molecules do not have muscles or motors. Confidence and gauging success require the ability to plan and set goals. Application of "intelligence" to plants is highly controversial, but even people who want to do that do not suggest that plants have muscles or motors. Molecules do not have sensors, and cannot "evaluate success": they simply have outcomes imposed on them.
Spell out the first "4", so as not to confuse it with 1, 2, 3, 4.
| Quote | | If a system meets 3 out of 4 requirements then it qualifies as protointelligent, as when sensors connect directly to the motors in a way that guides direction but does not self-learn how to control itself. Intelligence has a memory system between sensors and its motors to control, not direct connections. If memory contents can be monitored then intelligence is quantified by its measurable learning curve. |
Sensors connecting to motors without a system that learns to control anything is not 'intelligent" or "protointelligent": it's just an automated switch, like a thermostat. The sentence about "memory system" is uninterpretable. Intelligence might be quantified by measuring learning curves (congratulations on at least a little bit of progress), but monitoring the memory contents in your program's bug are not tantamount to learning.
| Quote | | A trinity of intelligence levels cause all of our complex intelligence related behaviors to connect back to the behavior of matter, which does not need to be intelligent to be source of consciousness. |
'intelligence-related'; 'A trinity ... causes' (except that it doesn't, and you'd be better off just saying "Three"); "to be the source". You have to prove both two of your three supposed intelligence levels, and that whole bald assertion about them causing all our behaviors.
| Quote | | There is reciprocal cause/causation in both forward and reverse directions, more specifically (where from behavior of matter) “behavioral cause/causation” or (where from intelligent behavior) “intelligent cause/causation”. |
"cause/causation": pick one and stick with it.
"reciprocal ... in both forward and back directions" That's redundant.
"where from" ???
That whole sentence just doesn't make sense. |
Some of that was useful screed! The word “behavior” and accompanying paragraph is now being tested at the AI forum, where the topic received a few replies but word choice still looks good.
I'll reconstruct how it now appears in the text, with the illustration it's describing in between:
| Quote | The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause whereby in biology a collective of intelligent entities at the molecular level combine to cause intelligence at the cellular level, which combine to cause intelligence at the multicellular level, thereby creating a trinity of self-similar entities at different size scales each systematically in their own image, likeness.
Intelligence is here defined as a behavior that through trial and error self-learns (or self-programs), which is qualified as intelligent by its 4 requirement systematics containing: 1; body/platform with muscles/motors to control, 2; sensory addressed memory to store motor actions, 3; confidence (hedonic system) to gauge motor action failure or success, 4; ability to guess new motor action when something new is first encountered or confidence level in a recalled action sufficiently decreases. Intelligence is something added to an existing behavior that would otherwise aimlessly twitch around or be more like guided missile behavior that only uses sensor to motor feedback to stay on course. Intelligence has a memory system between sensors and motors, not direct connections. If a system meets 3 out of 4 requirements then it qualifies as protointelligent behavior as when sensors directly connect to the motors to guide direction, but does not learn how to control itself. If memory contents can be monitored then intelligence is quantified by its measurable learning curve.
Simplified from Arnold Trehub, "The Cognitive Brain", MIT Press 1991, Chapter 9, Page 158, Fig 9.3
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....ub....b
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....er9.pdf
Also machine learning, David L. Heiserman "How to Build Your Own Self-Programming Robot" TAB Books 1979
http://www.beam-wiki.org/wiki.......#Rodney
There is reciprocal cause/causation in both forward and reverse directions, more specifically (where from behavior of matter) “behavioral cause/causation” or (where from intelligent behavior) “intelligent cause/causation”. This behavioral pathway causes all of our complex intelligence related behaviors to connect back to the behavior of matter, which does not need to be intelligent to be source of consciousness. |
I'm not sure about using only the word “cause” due to reciprocal “causation" so commonly used in science as well. Still seems a good idea to show exactly where either means the same thing, than leave the relationship ambiguous. Since I did not write the premise that must stay “cause”, but after that there are a few places where it's interchangeable “reciprocal cause/causation” or “behavioral cause/causation” or when from intelligence “intelligent cause/causation”. That seemed like a good way to be specific as possible, even though it complicates the grammar a little.
--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
|
