NoName
Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013
|
Of all the many flaws and failures in your "theory", Gary, the most damaging are the fundamental ones. Your "theory" is viciously circular, using acts of intelligence as core elements of your 'explanation' of intelligence.
Specifically, a "guess" is a product of intelligence. It is not a random selection, it is not an 'automatic mindless process'. It is the outcome of a process of intelligence. Rocks do not guess. Neither atoms nor molecules, nor do polymers such as RNA and DNA. Trees don't guess [to the best of our ability to determine]. Guessing is part of the problem that requires explanation, not an element serving as a part of the explanation.
The same goes for 'confidence level evaluation'. Confidence and evaluation are both intelligent processes or outcomes of the processes of intelligence. They are not present in rocks, nor in molecules or atoms, nor in polymers such as RNA and DNA. The existence, the emergence of those features of the universe needs to be explained. They are not, and cannot be, part of the foundational explanation of themselves.
The problem of emergence, the 'hard problem of consciousness', is not solved by asserting, without evidence nor foundation, the existence of the emergent features at ever-lower levels of mechanical or computational reality.
Your program fails because it is raised on imaginary foundations. Viciously circular and thus useless, it is unscientific and laughably inadequate as anything other than an example of going wrong with confidence.
|