NoName
Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013
|
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 21 2015,15:29) | From what I can gather a group of evolutionary biologists are using the public schools to teach an Avida based Darwinian theory that misrepresents what is actually going on in “cognitive science” and what cognitive scientists are working on. | You are not qualified to judge. What on earth does evolutionary theory have to do with cognitive science, or the perversion you make of that discipline? Nothing directly relevant, that's what. Proving yet again that you are not competent to make these judgements. Quote | With the Google search engine now taking a "best guess" all that I have been explaining is already here anyway, including in what has been described as superhuman intelligence "future robot overlords" for us to welcome and/or beware of. |
You've explained nothing. There is nothing in your twaddle that counts as explanatory. Nor can your "theory" explain countless acts widely considered to be intelligent. Among a near-infinity of other reasons, this is due to your refusal to qualify, let alone quantify, what you mean by 'intelligence'. As has been pointed out repeatedly, without this you've got nothing. Quote | Instead of objective theory that systematically explains why IBM Watson and other systems indeed scientifically qualify as “intelligent” a branch of evolutionary biology is teaching subjective methods where unintelligent things like reaching a goal is good enough of a metric to use as a qualifier, even though such generalizations do not in reality work for those who actually model intelligence (cognitive scientists). |
We know you know nothing at all about cognitive science by your abuse of the standard terms and their standard meanings in that pile of steaming verbiage you persist in mislabeling a "theory." Quote | Not even the Watson or Google machine intelligence now all around us right now wants anyone to take credit away from their meeting the systematic requirements that also makes sense along with what Arnold Trehub and David Heiserman explained about the basic systematic features of intelligence. |
What, pray tell, do you imagine those 'systematic requirements' are that Watson and Google meet but Beethoven composing his Ninth Symphony fails to? On the grounds of your own twaddle, musicians are not doing anything that requires intelligence until and unless they are writing the music down. But as most people with IQs at or above room temperature are well aware, the act of composition precedes, and does not require, the act of notation. Quote | The need to misrepresent my work could be the tip of an iceberg that's in the way of scientific progress now being made in all of cognitive science. | Show us one place, just one place, where your work has been misrepresented. You can't. Your work fails on its own complete lack of merit. Your "theory" is not even junk science -- it isn't science at all, and can never be until you provide a great deal more than you even comprehend. Quote | Something way bigger than me, where I'm just one of the passengers who needs to help keep watch for those in our way. I'll from here shout out the above alarm to at least cause Wesley to have to rearrange the deck chairs of what they are aboard, while I further work on the computer model that makes it possible for others elsewhere to not have to stop there. |
Self-congratulatory bullshit mixed with whiny complaints duly noted. Do you have anything new to say that you've not uttered countless times in your 7+ years of epic failure across the web? How can you even hallucinate yourself as a success when you have convinced not one single person, anywhere, of the correctness, or even the coherency, of your "theory"? Hmmm? Sucks to be you, failure is your only accomplishment.
|