NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2014,15:43) | | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 19 2014,12:59) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2014,10:54) | | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 19 2014,12:45) | | So the units of molecular intelligence are (drumroll...) percent? That's brilliant, Gary. Have you considered a career as a garden gnome? |
I'm done trying to reason with insulting jerk-off's like you. |
Done? When did you start reasoning? I don't pay regular attention to this thread, and must have missed it.
Possibly it was one of your devastating argumentum ad shitty music video posts. |
In my opinion you came to this forum expecting to have fun playing hero by helping to mock and ridicule someone or something out of science. You did not expect something very well researched that even includes the best of UMass legend Arnold Trehub, who actually did have insight into how human (and other) intelligence works. I was lucky to have early-on found a copy at the Odyssey bookshop (across the street from Mount Holyoke College) when it was brand new to cognitive science. I must have spent a couple thousand hours modeling from it. David Heiserman based models that came before helped make sense of what is most important to know about how the Arnold Trehub model all together works.
If you had studied the text of the theory and knew how the model works (the same for any intelligence that can exist therefore same line charts all over again) then your questions would have already been answered. It would then make sense why the model and theory more than meets expectations of those who are genuinely expecting a useful computer model to experiment with. What makes it this scientifically exciting is what I found most scientifically exciting in all of cognitive science that has been around over the decades. All the rest is only what is now possible from that. |
You're delusional.
Trehub's work may be awesome, but it is no longer anything like cutting edge.
And your work bears very little resemblance to his. Show us his imprimatur if you think he would approve of your nonsense.
But your self-evaluation of your work is delusional. It is not 'very well researched' [nothing with a single source is 'well researched']. The number of hours you've spent on it are irrelevant. The location where you found the book that inspired you is irrelevant.
As I recall, Wesley has shown pretty thoroughly that your work is not based at all closely or well on Heiserman's. But even if it were, so what? You've made a botch of it.
Your nonsense has, as we continue to show, zero explanatory capability. You seem to know this in some pre-verbal inchoate fashion, as you never, ever, under any circumstances, make the attempt to provide an explanation of any phenomenon generally considered to be an artifact of intelligence using solely your theory, its terms and connections.
All your "theory" can explain is a vast waste of ink and a large number of electrons temporarily inconvenienced by transporting it about the net and onto innocent display screens across the planet.
We have studied the text of the "theory". The model doesn't "work" in any sense of the term. If it did you could show when, where, why, and how. That you cannot is the most epic of your epic fails. That you will not even attempt to, that you will merely bluster, bloviate, and attempt to distort, deflect, and distract from the questions shows you to have some minimal awareness of the absurdity of your claims.
This may help explain why your prose is so tortured, but it helps in no other fashion.
How does your "theory" explain the not-at-all controversial act of intelligence required to recognize a melody heard in a different key and tempo from that already known by the listener? If it cannot, why not? What are the limits, the boundaries outside of which your "theory" no longer covers phenomena widely acknowledged to be artifacts of intelligence?
Your claims are widely general, thus they may, and indeed must, be taken to apply to any and all acts of intelligence. If they cannot, if they do not apply to intelligence as such, wherever found and however expressed, then you do not have a 'theory of intelligence'. Just as you do not have a 'theory of flight' if you cannot account for birds, flying squirrels, and airplanes.
How is a 'guess' generated? Guessing is an act of intelligence. Using the term as part of your "explanation" of intelligence renders your "explanation" illusory, and ultimately false.
And thus we must concur with JohnW's implication that you have not yet begun to reason. In any sense of the term.
|
