GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012
|
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 10 2012,00:29) | That's pretty brazen, Gary. You now say that you had full knowledge of my paper, and yet you still claimed things that are false to fact. |
My work requires far more than "movement strategies" and artificially "evolved programs".
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 10 2012,00:29) | Your original statement: Quote | [...] their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to.
|
You might not like my work, but it does directly address the topic that you claim it did not.
And the "even have to" is quite egregiously false to fact.
Now you claim new false things.
Gary: Quote | No testable operational definition for intelligence. |
Paper: Quote | If intelligence is taken to be the increased frequency of emission of adaptive behavior under novel stimuli, as is seen in studies of animal behavior, Cockroach either does not qualify as such, since all stimuli yield the same behavior, or may be seen as a small relative improvement on a random walk, since it does exploit the conditions implicit in a bounded grid for movement. |
Not only did I provide a commonly-used testable operational definition, I evaluated evolved strategies against it. Refer above to the quote about testing Climber Avidians in novel environments in addition to the quote just previous. |
Wikipedia has a list of some of the common definitions:
Quote | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ligence
The definition of intelligence is controversial. Groups of scientists have stated the following:
from "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" (1994), an editorial statement by fifty-two researchers: A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.[5]
from "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" (1995), a report published by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association: Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person's intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions, and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen, somewhat different, definitions.[6][7]
Alfred Binet: Judgment, otherwise called "good sense," "practical sense," "initiative," the faculty of adapting one's self to circumstances ... auto-critique.[8]
David Wechsler: The aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment.[9]
Lloyd Humphreys: "...the resultant of the process of acquiring, storing in memory, retrieving, combining, comparing, and using in new contexts information and conceptual skills."[10]
Cyril Burt: Innate general cognitive ability[11]
Howard Gardner: To my mind, a human intellectual competence must entail a set of skills of problem solving — enabling the individual to resolve genuine problems or difficulties that he or she encounters and, when appropriate, to create an effective product — and must also entail the potential for finding or creating problems — and thereby laying the groundwork for the acquisition of new knowledge.[12]
Linda Gottfredson: The ability to deal with cognitive complexity.[13]
Sternberg & Salter: Goal-directed adaptive behavior.[14]
Reuven Feuerstein: The theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability describes intelligence as "the unique propensity of human beings to change or modify the structure of their cognitive functioning to adapt to the changing demands of a life situation."[15] |
The operational definition you gave is another fuzzy definition with no systematic way to reliably qualify a system as being intelligent or not. It might be good enough for your peers and for a science paper but the theory I have been working on needs to be absolutely precise, with no generalizations or uncertainty that in your case could not even definitively conclude whether a cockroach is intelligent or not.
What I did find very useful in regards to cockroach intelligence is in this excellent video that demonstrated what I was studying in science papers:
John Bender and Roy Ritzmann - Central Control of Insect Locomotion
The circuit schematic in the Intelligence Design Lab (see earlier reply) uses the same Left/Right and Forward/Reverse system that is described in the video.
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 10 2012,00:29) | Gary: Quote | Rehash of similar EA work I have seen before that makes assumptions which might not be true, such as altruism requiring special circuit/circuitry. |
Yeah, Gary; show me where in my paper I say anything about an altruism circuit. Go ahead, I can wait. And will wait forever, since your claim is, once again, a false one.
As for "rehash", it is certainly possible that I missed a citation that I should have found. Please substantiate your claim by providing the full bibliographic references of uncited and earlier evolutionary computation papers whose topic is the evolution of effective methods for movement of an agent relative to a resource gradient. (You should pay attention to authors in the "et al.", since I'm part of "et al." in the Grabowski et al. 2008 paper.)
I'm sure that there's some common word that describes someone who over and over prefers to tell falsehoods rather than truth. |
You sure do like to condemn. But whatever, here is a paper on "Evolution of Altruism" that was a big sensation to others in the ID controversy but when I saw a special "Share token" circuit I quickly lost interest even though it was still a little bit interesting from a robotics standpoint:
http://www.plosbiology.org/article....15.g001
From what I saw in a forum (not sure which one(s)) where the paper was applauded, none questioned whether it was truly representative of biology or anything even evolved. It looked to me like a circuit that was specially designed to artificially develop an analogy to altruism (therefore it did) but is not the real thing. All that the promoters of the Darwinian paradigm needed to see were the keywords "Evolution of Altruism" and of course they were all excited by the paper.
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 10 2012,00:29) | As for various other points, my paper wasn't aimed at doing whatever it is that you think that you are doing. I think I was pretty clear about the aim of the paper: Quote | Our interest requires a more open-ended approach than is often used in studies of computational intelligence. In most cases, there is a specific function of interest to be accomplished, and the means or process by which that function is acquired is of less interest than the fact of either solving, or approximately solving, it. Instead, in looking at the evolution of intelligent behavior, our primary interest is in finding out by what means less capable agents give rise to those able to appropriately exploit prevailing conditions. |
It is still a paper whose topic is intelligent foraging, where the digital organisms "had to" forage in order to gain relative advantage over other digital organisms, contrary to your false claim. |
Where are the critters with a mouth, antennae, eyes, etc. and their circuit diagrams which show confidence levels needed to gauge their overall state of mind and success while foraging?
It's all that was not included which made it another EA paper that likely does not very well represent the reality of how living things work or "evolved". You say they are are intelligently foraging but the paper does not even show them foraging for anything, and all else I need to see for it to be credible. Graphs are here unacceptable. And for origin of life research, I have no idea how you would be able to step-wise go from a particle system that models atoms/matter to an intelligent living thing with artificially "evolved programs". But at least your paper has excellent grammar.
-------------- 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.
|