N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote | | Consider me to be as dumb as a turd and I need you to show me how to test this computer model and its theory of operation for how well it can model things that very few people even know about yet: |
A theory of operation is not yet a theory of operation if it needs testing. A theory of operation is not a scientific theory: it is an explanation of how a device should operate so that people can better understand how it works and how to fix it if something goes wrong. You have more or less provided a theory of operation for your computer program via explanatory text and comment lines in your program.
In terms of testing computer models, they need to be ground-truthed, to make sure that they represent reality as closely as possible. Since insects don't have hippocampi, yours doesn't represent reality very well. Since your model doesn't deal with reproduction over generations or any organisms simpler than insects, it doesn't address the emergence of intelligence and doesn't say anything about evolutionary processes, contrary to your assertions. Since no intelligent design is involved other than you doing programming, it doesn't actually say anything about intelligent design. More specifically, one tests a computer model by inputting a diversity of real numbers for various parameters (typically varying just one at a time) chosen to match some known natural or experimental situations, crank out some results, and compare them to the actual results in the real or experimental situation. Since you lack both operational definitions and real-world quantitative data, we can't do this. Thus, this part is not especially promising.
However, what you really meant to ask was how are you supposed to test the set/morass of ideas that you call a theory (but which is not yet any kind of a theory, particularly not a scientific one) about the emergence of intelligence, molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, the Cambrian explosion, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
The steps to do this are:
Step 1) Provide clear and logical dictionary-type definitions for all terms to be used in nonstandard ways. If these include controversial claims, provide supporting evidence that those claims are justified.
Step 2) Provide operational definitions so that we know what you are measuring and can measure it for ourselves
Step 3) Describe your ideas clearly so that everyone can understand them.
Step 4) Set up some specific mutually exclusive hypotheses that relate logically to things that your ideas explain in ways that are different from explanations offered by competing theories, and make some predictions that are entailed in them, and make equivalent but measurably different predictions that are derived from the competing theory or theories, and collect some new evidence that can determine which prediction was correct, and therefore which explanation is better. Unfortunately, I am both unwilling and unable to help you with step 4, because you haven't yet completed steps 1 through 3. This means that (a) in many cases I remain unsure what the heck you are talking about, (b) in many other cases I'm pretty sure what you are saying and you seem to be wrong, so until you gin up some evidence that demonstrates that you have something worthwhile, there doesn't seem to be anything worth bothering about, ( c) in lots of cases you are making claims that don't have anything to do with your model, so again there is nothing to test yet, at least in terms of the model.
In short, what you have is far from ready for testing.
|
