NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 01 2015,00:45) | | Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 31 2015,23:20) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 01 2015,04:27) | | I have better things to do than spend another year chasing my tail while you and other religious zealots throw insults. |
You say this every year. |
Last year I did a good job of spending my time elsewhere. Including UD, which has done such a marvelous job of insulting almost everyone in the world it's now self-destructing. |
You also did a good job of running away from the hard questions. This forces the rational amongst us (pretty much everybody but you and DM) to wonder how you can have a 'marvelous theory' that can't be used to explain anything at all about the operations of intelligence.
You did a pretty decent job of deflection and distraction to help you move the hard questions further pack in the stack of pages you inevitably generate wherever you post.
They're easy to recover, though:
| Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 31 2014,09:31) | You've got a whole lot of transparent and ineffective distraction going on, Gary.
As NoName said earlier,
| Quote | Stop deflecting, distracting, and denying. Man up and deal with the facts on the ground:
A phenomenon is not properly called 'emergent' when it arises from a set of phenomena to which it is properly called 'self-similar'. And vice versa.
Not all acts of 'intelligence' are motor acts, yet your "theory" insists otherwise. This flies in the face of your assertion that your, or any competing, "theory" must "explain how ANY intelligence system works."
Deal with the fact that you smuggle 'intelligence' into your module with the undefined and uncharacterized 'guess' function.
Deal with the fact that 'guess' does not equal 'plan'. Your "theory" is useless as a 'theory of intelligence' if it cannot deal with plans and planning.
Deal with the fact that many acts of intelligence involve imagination, and your "theory" does not deal with imagination at all.
Deal with the fact that some of the most crucial constraints on life are thermodynamic and that your "theory" simply ignores any and all thermodynamic issues.
Etc. |
| Quote | What is the ‘something’ that must be controlled when an intelligence creates a theory? a musical composition? a plan? a story plot line?
Note that none of these require muscle activity of any sort.
What are the senses that address what memory/memories when an intelligence creates a theory? a musical composition? a plan? a story plot line?
Note that each of these has been performed by individuals who lack the 'obvious' sensory modalities one would expect for the product.
Sub-question — what does it mean for memory to be sensory-addressed? The naive view that has the senses directly writing to memory or directly “indicating” what memory to use and what to store there has been debunked many many years ago. So what are you talking about here?
What is the measure of confidence to gauge failure and success when an intelligence creates a theory? a musical composition? a plan? a story plot line?
Sub-question — what senses address what memory/memories in the creation, storage, and retrieval of the ‘confidence’ factor? Is it analog or digital? What process(es) modify it, at what points, and what difference does it make?
What is the ‘ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS’? How is it manifested and how is it utilized when an intelligence creates a theory? a musical composition? a plan? a story plot line?
What is a guess? How does ‘guess’ relate to ‘plan’ and to ‘imagination? Are there factors that feed into/influence the guess? Is a guess random? If not, what regularity does it exhibit? Is it algorithmic? What algorithm? Or how is the specific algorithm used chosen?
What justifies embedding ‘guess’ into the “flow” that defines “intelligence” when the ability to guess is generally taken to be an act of intelligence? How is it we only find guessing happening when we find ‘molecular intelligence’ in your sense, i.e., biology?
(You do realize that a random number generator in a computer program does not ‘guess’?) |
And questions from me:
| Quote | Why is your rubbish not made obsolete by Edgar Postrado's rubbish?
| 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. |
Since you see intelligence darn near everywhere at all levels, in your opinion what behavior would qualify as not intelligent, and why? |
|
|
