N.Wells
Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 03 2016,16:54) | Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 03 2016,07:25) | People who work on animal intelligence often measure it by how many different behaviors the organism can control (which is a very cool operational definition that leads to more or less reproducible evaluations). Most insects are between 15 and 59 (with bees at the top score, correlating mostly with degrees of social interactions): by comparison, dolphins rank at 123. Standardized for brain size, bees are pretty damn smart. |
That's nice, but I work with far more than "animal intelligence".
I'm not interested in narrow definitions that cannot explain how an intelligent system works. That would be a step backwards. |
You work with far less than animal intelligence.
You do not have an operational definition that works for human intelligence, let alone any other kind. You do not have a valid theoretical definition for intelligence that justifies expansion of the concept beyond traditional limits, nor any evidence that doing so is valid, useful, or meaningful. You have yet to demonstrate that (for example) "molecular intelligence" actually exists, so you are a long, long way from having a method to quantify it, to measure it, so that we can begin to discuss it.
Quote | I'm not interested in narrow definitions that cannot explain how an intelligent system works. That would be a step backwards. | That's not really how it works. I don't care if your definition is broad or narrow, just as long as you have one that is logically justifiable, which you do not. It is not required of a definition to explain how something works. (That's really more the job of the theory that is developed by doing the work that becomes possible once you have a satisfactory working definition, although later definitions will likely include explanations based on established theories - look up definitions of plate tectonics for examples of the latter sort of definition). The first and most important job of a definition is to say what something is, in a useful and justifiable way, so that we can all get on the same page in order to discuss it and to investigate it. You have not done this, so all your stuff is mere drivel.
Idiot: (from Wikipedia): "An idiot, dolt, dullard or (archaically) mome is a person perceived to be lacking intelligence, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. Along with the similar terms moron, imbecile, and cretin, the word archaically referred to the intellectually disabled, but have all since gained specialized meanings in modern times. An idiot is said to be idiotic, and to suffer from idiocy. A dunce is an idiot who is specifically incapable of learning. An idiot differs from a fool (who is unwise) and an ignoramus (who is uneducated/ignorant), neither of which refers to someone with low intelligence. In modern English usage, the terms "idiot" and "idiocy" describe an extreme folly or stupidity, and its symptoms (foolish or stupid utterance or deed). In psychology, it is a historical term for the state or condition now called profound intellectual disability [...... Individuals with the lowest mental age level (less than three years) were identified as idiots; imbeciles had a mental age of three to seven years, and morons had a mental age of seven to ten years]"
You are still screwing around modelling something that does not exist (hippocampi in insects), using meaningless variables rather than generating anything significant from first principles. You have yet to show that you have anything of interest or value, and all indications so far are that you don't.
|