NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
Two key points:
1) you are neither omniscient nor even particularly well-informed about models for demonstrating intelligence. Thus, 'the best model you know of' is a poor pool of candidates at best.
2) no competing model is required to dismiss an alleged model that fails on its on merits, or lack thereof. Such as yours.
You are overly focused on models, and not focused on the required pre-requisites.
You are overly enamored of computer programs, to the detriment of all you attempt.
In part as a result of this 'programophilia', you make the trivial mistake of treating the mechanisms of 'intelligence' as binary, which is worse than ludicrous -- it is demonstrably incorrect.
The map is not the territory. The map is not prescriptive of the territory.
| Quote | | then they have nothing for anyone to even evaluate, test. |
Strictly false, as noted above.
| Quote | | It is also unreasonable to expect out of place detail that would limit the theory to only one level of intelligence (brains) of a model that has to work for any behavior, intelligent or not. |
Which it demonstrably does not.
| Quote | | It's not my fault their neural network models of "evolution" do not work in theory to explain how all possible intelligent and unintelligent behavior works. |
And why should they be expected to?
Evolution is neither required nor expected to explain intelligence in the sense you keep harping on.
Your work would go quite a bit better (that is, it would suck less, fail less spectacularly) if you were to provide specific operational definitions for your key terms.
You are unable to do so because you do not know or understand what you are working on or with.
You make a serious mistake when you treat 'intelligence' as a unitary phenomenon without differentiation, multiple divergent implementations and expressions, and, ultimately, a polymorphic term. It's as if you were insisting that flight can only be achieved by wing flapping and therefore a supersonic transport must have both motive power and lift supplied by the motion of the wings. That leap of irrationality is formally identical to your insistence that all 'intelligence' is of one sort, it all operates the same way, it is all reducible to a single model, that model requires motors[!! so seriously deranged a view of 'intelligence' as to leave one awestruck at the stupidity responsible for such a naive and useless perspective], etc.
Look, we have already falsified your approach. Your "theory" isn't a theory at all. Your "theory" bears no resemblance to your software at all. And vice versa.
Your "theory" claims to explain things it demonstrably cannot, because not all intelligent acts involve motor control. That alone is sufficient to dismiss your nonsense, no competing theory required.
Do you seriously believe that the act of generating a theory is the act of typing it out or writing it down? Are you, at root, that befuddled? The act of composing a symphony, or a melody, is not the act of scoring it or singing it or performing it. No muscles are involved at all, yet the act is canonically intelligent. Likewise the act of generating a hypothesis, the act of planning a move in a chess game, the creation of a story plot, the cognition of a literary work, etc.
|
