NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 21 2016,23:53) | | Quote (N.Wells @ April 21 2016,22:18) | | Once more, I gave you my criteria: their stuff has some value, in sharp contrast with yours, because unlike you they take pains in "bringing together multiple sources of data of varying detail into a single virtual model and testing this against reality." |
I would love to see them "testing this against reality" by putting it in a moving invisible shock-zone arena, like I have to.
It would be somewhat comical to watch it get zapped real good, every time the shock zone circles around again. |
Probably as good a time as any to raise the next set of massive flaws in your 'model'.
When tested against reality, your 'model' fails in that 'sensory addressed ram', in the specific meaning of the terms, is simply a fantasy.
You will eventually wind up having to fall back to "there have to be sensations and they have to be stored in memory", just as your "something to control" wound up meaning "there has to be a physical substrate enabling intelligence".
Biological memory is just barely, distantly, analogous to RAM. The analogy fails upon even minimal examination.
Biological memory is not directly accessed by sensation.
Sensory processing as witnessed and tested by experiment calls the entire notion of discrete and primary 'sensation' into question. Indeed, it seems to refute it. You appear to be relying on the 'constancy hypothesis', which is riddled with difficulties and generally taken to be incorrect. It is non-falsifiable at best.
'Sensations' are inferred entities, crafted out of whole cloth to maintain a specific set of reductive materialist philosophical positions which have been of little to no help in intelligence research and are best discarded as primary entities.
Your 'model' is so over-simplistic that it becomes a lie.
Sensations neither directly address specific memory locations nor are they directly stored as representations of the alleged sensation that allegedly accessed the alleged 'location' of the "memory cell". We know this from countless experiments, going back at least a hundred years.
It is literally impossible for your 'model' to teach anyone anything about intelligence [other than the fact that you lack it] due to its phantasmagorical nature. Your 'model' is of no more use in determining what intelligence is or how it works than a model of the Star Wars 'Death Star' is of use in determining the existence, means, or methods of interstellar conflict.
It doesn't matter that your little software 'bug' can occasionally display 'behavior' the mimics the behavior of what might over-generously be called 'intelligence'.
That's neither a sign that your model is correct nor a sign that your model is truth-grounded in reality.
Your 'model' is demonstrably flawed and lacks any connection to the real world. As a result, its results teach us nothing about the real world.
So your pretentious claim | Quote | | I provide far more new knowledge in regards to how the brain works than the entire HBP project did. |
is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.
There is no 'brain' analog in your 'model', not one that maps to actual biological brains. There is no intelligence involved in your software toy.
Your 'theory' cheats by incorporating intelligence into the explanation of intelligence, rendering the 'theory' circular and thus useless.
|
