RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 570 571 572 573 574 [575] 576 577 578 579 580 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2016,07:18   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 30 2016,06:54)
How would that change my (based upon how intelligence works) operational definition for "intelligence"?
 
Quote
Behavior from a system or a device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements that are required for this ability, which are: (1) A body to control, either real or virtual, with motor muscle(s) including molecular actuators, motor proteins, speakers (linear actuator), write to a screen (arm actuation), motorized wheels (rotary actuator). It is possible for biological intelligence to lose control of body muscles needed for movement yet still be aware of what is happening around itself but this is a condition that makes it impossible to survive on its own and will normally soon perish. (2) Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. (3) Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail to meet immediate needs or goal. (4) Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response is designed into the motor system by the reversing of motor direction causing it to “tumble” towards a new heading.

That's not an operational definition, because it doesn't tell me how to measure the parameters.

It's not a valid theoretical definition either, because:

1) Requiring "a body to control" specifically excludes activities that are widely considered to epitomize intelligence (without redefining intelligence in any useful way), such as planning your future, evaluating your life, mentally composing a melody, etc., etc., etc.  
2) You are nonsensically special-pleading with respect to virtual bodies,  molecular actuators, speakers, writing to a screen, etc.
3) You haven't ground-truthed anything regarding any part of your #2.
4) Your 1 through 4 include Neato vacuum cleaners and autofocus cameras as being intelligent.
5) "Guessing" can be random and is not necessarily indicative of intelligence in action: assessing results and modifying subsequent behavior can be intelligent, but some cases may instead be handled thoughtlessly by biochemical reactions (e.g., tumbled seeds "figuring out" which way to grow; bacteria tumbling randomly and then biochemical reactions assess results and promote additional biochemical reactions).   Learning from experience gained from random guesses is more obviously indicative of intelligence, but you don't say that.

Those are just some of the highlights of your problems, not an exhaustive list.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2016,07:49   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 30 2016,07:18)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 30 2016,06:54)
How would that change my (based upon how intelligence works) operational definition for "intelligence"?
   
Quote
Behavior from a system or a device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements that are required for this ability, which are: (1) A body to control, either real or virtual, with motor muscle(s) including molecular actuators, motor proteins, speakers (linear actuator), write to a screen (arm actuation), motorized wheels (rotary actuator). It is possible for biological intelligence to lose control of body muscles needed for movement yet still be aware of what is happening around itself but this is a condition that makes it impossible to survive on its own and will normally soon perish. (2) Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. (3) Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail to meet immediate needs or goal. (4) Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response is designed into the motor system by the reversing of motor direction causing it to “tumble” towards a new heading.

That's not an operational definition, because it doesn't tell me how to measure the parameters.

It's not a valid theoretical definition either, because:

1) Requiring "a body to control" specifically excludes activities that are widely considered to epitomize intelligence (without redefining intelligence in any useful way), such as planning your future, evaluating your life, mentally composing a melody, etc., etc., etc.  
2) You are nonsensically special-pleading with respect to virtual bodies,  molecular actuators, speakers, writing to a screen, etc.
3) You haven't ground-truthed anything regarding any part of your #2.
4) Your 1 through 4 include Neato vacuum cleaners and autofocus cameras as being intelligent.
5) "Guessing" can be random and is not necessarily indicative of intelligence in action: assessing results and modifying subsequent behavior can be intelligent, but some cases may instead be handled thoughtlessly by biochemical reactions (e.g., tumbled seeds "figuring out" which way to grow; bacteria tumbling randomly and then biochemical reactions assess results and promote additional biochemical reactions).   Learning from experience gained from random guesses is more obviously indicative of intelligence, but you don't say that.

Those are just some of the highlights of your problems, not an exhaustive list.

Gary, rather than posting a link to a music video or some irrelevant site, as is your habit when challenged, it would be good if you were to answer each of those complaints in order. I know that's not the way that Gaulin Real-Science® is done, but humor us.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2016,08:02   

As we keep pointing out, it is false to fact in virtually every respect in which it approaches real world phenomena.
Largely, it is not even wrong.  It is inedible word salad.

Your diagram is ludicrous.  Useless, over-generalized, and insofar as it can be mapped onto something like reality, it is false.

There are no new issues here.  Thus, there are no new rejoinders.  Address the multitude of problems that we have pointed out.
Rephrasing your insane chatter will not make it sane, let alone useful.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2016,15:45   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 30 2016,07:18)
1) Requiring "a body to control" specifically excludes activities that are widely considered to epitomize intelligence (without redefining intelligence in any useful way), such as planning your future, evaluating your life, mentally composing a melody, etc., etc., etc.  

If you had no body then you would not even exist. Duh?

Honestly, the "creationists" at the Reddit Creationism forum are showing way more common sense than that.

--------------
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.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2016,16:09   

This is a typical "operational definition of intelligence":
 
Quote
What is the operational definition of intelligence?

an individual's capacity to act purposefully, think rationally, and deal effectively with the environment

www.brainscape.com/flashcards/777317/-What-is-the-operational-definition-of-intelligence

Did anyone else notice that it's so full of generalizations that it's useless for origin of life/intelligence related work?

Does a tree qualify as an "individual"? How about a single cell? Or a genetic system? Or maybe even a robotic vacuum cleaner that can act purposefully, think rationally, and deal effectively with both wood and carpet floors of its environment?

--------------
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.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2016,17:14   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 30 2016,17:09)
This is a typical "operational definition of intelligence":
   
Quote
What is the operational definition of intelligence?

an individual's capacity to act purposefully, think rationally, and deal effectively with the environment

www.brainscape.com/flashcards/777317/-What-is-the-operational-definition-of-intelligence

Did anyone else notice that it's so full of generalizations that it's useless for origin of life/intelligence related work?

Does a tree qualify as an "individual"? How about a single cell? Or a genetic system? Or maybe even a robotic vacuum cleaner that can act purposefully, think rationally, and deal effectively with both wood and carpet floors of its environment?

Gary, there is nothing, literally nothing, more full of generalizations than your effluent.
Do you have the faintest clue what role generalizations play in allowing for speech?

What justifies calling what you quoted a 'typical operational definition of intelligence'?  Typical in what context?  To whom?  From where was this sourced?  [Plagiarism is a non-trivial intellectual offense you know.]

In your own estimation, is this definition of a noun or an adjective?  What difference would that make?

As we have repeatedly noted, you do not know what you are talking about.  You are not qualified to utter the judgments you so casually throw around.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2016,17:56   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 30 2016,15:45)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 30 2016,07:18)
1) Requiring "a body to control" specifically excludes activities that are widely considered to epitomize intelligence (without redefining intelligence in any useful way), such as planning your future, evaluating your life, mentally composing a melody, etc., etc., etc.  

If you had no body then you would not even exist. Duh?

Honestly, the "creationists" at the Reddit Creationism forum are showing way more common sense than that.

That is an intensely stupid rejoinder even for you.  My needing a body has nothing to do with how to define or recognize intelligence.

(Also, not that this is a concern for me, but note that your position doesn't bode well for your religious arguments in favor of a disembodied deity, nor for souls.)

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2016,18:06   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 30 2016,16:09)
This is a typical "operational definition of intelligence":
     
Quote
What is the operational definition of intelligence?

an individual's capacity to act purposefully, think rationally, and deal effectively with the environment

www.brainscape.com/flashcards/777317/-What-is-the-operational-definition-of-intelligence

Did anyone else notice that it's so full of generalizations that it's useless for origin of life/intelligence related work?

 
Quote

Does a tree qualify as an "individual"? How about a single cell? Or a genetic system? Or maybe even a robotic vacuum cleaner that can act purposefully, think rationally, and deal effectively with both wood and carpet floors of its environment?
That's easy: no, no, no, and no. They are obviously only referring to individual animals of the sorts traditionally considered during discussions of intelligence.  If you want to expand the discussion you have to provide justifiable redefinitions.


Does a tree qualify as an "individual"? How about a single cell? Or a genetic system? Or maybe even a robotic vacuum cleaner that can act purposefully, think rationally, and deal effectively with both wood and carpet floors of its environment?

 
Quote
an individual's capacity to act purposefully, think rationally, and deal effectively with the environment

I agree that that is not a good operational definition, as it does not tell me unambiguously how to measure those things.  However, it does provide a pragmatic start to a theoretical definition.

I'm not seeing how those are useless generalizations (generalizations, yes, but why useless?).  "Problems" only arise in the context of your stupid and unjustified abuse of normal English, and that indicates problems with your work, rather than the quoted definition.

Your charge that the definition is absolutely useless for origin of life issues is, as usual, you wrongly assuming your conclusions, because we have no evidence on the table to indicate that the origin of intelligence has anything to do with the origin of life.  In fact, intelligence seems to have originated billions of years later.


Quote
Does a tree qualify as an "individual"? How about a single cell? Or a genetic system? Or maybe even a robotic vacuum cleaner that can act purposefully, think rationally, and deal effectively with both wood and carpet floors of its environment?

That's easy: yes (except for inosculated, colonial, and chimeric trees and the like), no, no, and no. However, although trees are "individuals", this definition is clearly not intended to extend to them.  It is clearly intended only to refer to individual animals high enough up the evolutionary ladder to show intelligence as traditionally defined.  Almost no one shares your peculiar ideas, so if you wish to extend the discussion more broadly, you need to provide clear and valid redefinitions and justification for them.  You haven't accomplished that yet, so those particular problems do not actually exist.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2016,18:51   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 30 2016,17:56)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 30 2016,15:45)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 30 2016,07:18)
1) Requiring "a body to control" specifically excludes activities that are widely considered to epitomize intelligence (without redefining intelligence in any useful way), such as planning your future, evaluating your life, mentally composing a melody, etc., etc., etc.  

If you had no body then you would not even exist. Duh?

Honestly, the "creationists" at the Reddit Creationism forum are showing way more common sense than that.

That is an intensely stupid rejoinder even for you.  My needing a body has nothing to do with how to define or recognize intelligence.

(Also, it doesn't bode well for your religious arguments in favor of a disembodied deity, nor for souls.)

Except for maybe you I do not know of anyone who believes in a deity that was disembodied from a once existing body. This is more like it, though some believe he is really a she:



Souls are said to retain their living bodily form. Although the theory is not evidence for such, it agrees by predicting that if intelligent souls do exist then their bodily form was somehow retained.

--------------
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.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2016,20:11   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 30 2016,18:51)
Except for maybe you I do not know of anyone who believes in a deity that was disembodied from a once existing body. This is more like it, though some believe he is really a she:

Souls are said to retain their living bodily form. Although the theory is not evidence for such, it agrees by predicting that if intelligent souls do exist then their bodily form was somehow retained.

Oh come off it: I did not say, "disembodied from a once living body".  Disembodied can mean removed from a body, but it can also mean existing without a body ("separated from or existing without the body. Synonyms: bodiless, incorporeal, discarnate, spiritual").  Christians believe that their god is transcendent (meaning independent of and removed from the material universe) and incorporeal (John 4:24, "God is spirit.").  Most modern christians also believe in immaterial souls separate from and surviving the body after physical death.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2016,23:31   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 30 2016,20:11)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 30 2016,18:51)
Except for maybe you I do not know of anyone who believes in a deity that was disembodied from a once existing body. This is more like it, though some believe he is really a she:

Souls are said to retain their living bodily form. Although the theory is not evidence for such, it agrees by predicting that if intelligent souls do exist then their bodily form was somehow retained.

Oh come off it: I did not say, "disembodied from a once living body".  Disembodied can mean removed from a body, but it can also mean existing without a body ("separated from or existing without the body. Synonyms: bodiless, incorporeal, discarnate, spiritual").  Christians believe that their god is transcendent (meaning independent of and removed from the material universe) and incorporeal (John 4:24, "God is spirit.").  Most modern christians also believe in immaterial souls separate from and surviving the body after physical death.

In context of the theory: (at least) biological intelligence requires a body to control, or the intelligence cannot exist. In that case the best you get is a motionless disembodied brain that does nothing at all but maybe float around in a jar still with a past recollection of the itself once having a body.

It is not up to you to decide what the theory predicts in regards to concepts like "disembodied". And singularitarians know that they don't want to get trapped inside their brain. They need to be wired back into at least a virtual body that gives them new eyes and all else, or they want no part in that experiment.

--------------
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.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2016,03:39   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 30 2016,23:31)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 30 2016,20:11)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 30 2016,18:51)
Except for maybe you I do not know of anyone who believes in a deity that was disembodied from a once existing body. This is more like it, though some believe he is really a she:

Souls are said to retain their living bodily form. Although the theory is not evidence for such, it agrees by predicting that if intelligent souls do exist then their bodily form was somehow retained.

Oh come off it: I did not say, "disembodied from a once living body".  Disembodied can mean removed from a body, but it can also mean existing without a body ("separated from or existing without the body. Synonyms: bodiless, incorporeal, discarnate, spiritual").  Christians believe that their god is transcendent (meaning independent of and removed from the material universe) and incorporeal (John 4:24, "God is spirit.").  Most modern christians also believe in immaterial souls separate from and surviving the body after physical death.

In context of the theory: (at least) biological intelligence requires a body to control, or the intelligence cannot exist. In that case the best you get is a motionless disembodied brain that does nothing at all but maybe float around in a jar still with a past recollection of the itself once having a body.

It is not up to you to decide what the theory predicts in regards to concepts like "disembodied". And singularitarians know that they don't want to get trapped inside their brain. They need to be wired back into at least a virtual body that gives them new eyes and all else, or they want no part in that experiment.

That's loads of irrelevant BS.

If an idea is any good, of course it is up to people who investigate it to determine its limits and applications.  You think the Theory of Evolution is limited to what Charles Darwin had to say about it?  

You have said "Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen)."  That is simply not true.  Intelligent behavior undoubtedly originated from animals controlling their bodies, but we are well beyond that, as so many of our acts which we consider to epitomize intelligence are divorced from controlling anything (Beethoven mentally composing a symphony after going deaf; someone evaluating their past and planning their future, etc., etc., etc.).  

You are now saying "The intelligence cannot exist", which is significantly different from "behavior that is intelligent requires".  Which is it?

I have no doubt that "singularitarians" would not want to be a disconnected brain in a jar, but how is that relevant to whether or not such an entity would be intelligent?  If scientists were to grow a human brain in a jar, would it not be capable of sentience and intelligence merely because it lacked a body or anything to control?  If people's minds could be saved from death by removing their brains and putting them in jars, but we were otherwise unable to do anything for them, would they immediately stop being intelligent? (They might well ultimately go insane, but that's another matter.)  If they could communicate with other brains in the same jar by grafted nerves or electrical transfer of thought, and if movies, music, sights, and sensations could be fed to them over passive circuitry, but they otherwise had nothing to control and weren't linked up to speakers or screens, would their intelligence cease to exist?  Would they be immediately incapable of intelligent thought?  You disproved your own pile of nonsense right there by admitting that "the best you get is a motionless disembodied brain that does nothing at all but maybe float around in a jar still with a past recollection of the itself once having a body."  That's intelligence in action right there, without anything to control, so "something to control" is not a valid requirement for intelligence.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2016,07:16   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 31 2016,00:31)
...
In context of the theory: (at least) biological intelligence requires a body to control, or the intelligence cannot exist.

But the same is true of many other factors you simply assume away.  Energy inputs and energy processing are of tremendous significance, and likely play a real role in the emergence of intelligence out of living bodies.
But focusing in energy transfers, energy levels, constraints, etc., aims attention at areas where you are particularly incompetent.  They don't fit well within your simplistic over-generalized "circuit diagram" in your so-called 'theory'.  It's not a theory.  "Body" explains nothing about intelligence as such, no more than does 'universe'.  It differentiates nothing, it adds no explanatory power, it merely lets you indulge in superstitious thinking about 'cellular intelligence' and other such nonsense.
 
Quote
In that case the best you get is a motionless disembodied brain that does nothing at all but maybe float around in a jar still with a past recollection of the itself once having a body.

It is not up to you to decide what the theory predicts in regards to concepts like "disembodied".

Why not?
Or, of course it is.
Those who you have subjected your ridiculous effluent-purporting-to-be-a-theory to are perfectly entitled to point out its implications, its conflicts with science and reality, its complete lack of explanatory power, and its contradictions with respect to such notions as a pre-existing non-material entity who 'creates' the universe out of nothing.  Your own "theory" renders any such notion of a creator deity inherently non-intelligent.  Deal with it.  Or stop pretending to be any sort of trinitarian Christian, or even any sort of Abrahamic-religion supporter.
Quote
And singularitarians know that they don't want to get trapped inside their brain. They need to be wired back into at least a virtual body that gives them new eyes and all else, or they want no part in that experiment.

Look, Gary, nobody is trying to claim that body's aren't important.
What we are trying to point out is that insisting that the body is an inherent and necessary element within the explanation of intelligence, particularly in the ways you do, is to confuse the map with the territory, the typography with the story, the binding with the book.

But, of course, you are both incapable of and unwilling to attempt to, understand these points.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2016,17:41   

A body to control, with no brain yet:

Red Cabbage & Egg Yolk Coacervates & Bubble
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA1OGYo-Syc

At least one out of the three requirements were met, with another simple egg experiment!

The theory must have that (very obvious to most) requirement, for origin of life/intelligence related work.

--------------
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.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2016,17:49   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 31 2016,17:41)
A body to control, with no brain yet:

Red Cabbage & Egg Yolk Coacervates & Bubble
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA1OGYo-Syc

At least one out of the three requirements were met, with another simple egg experiment!

The theory must have that (very obvious to most) requirement, for origin of life/intelligence related work.

Nonsense.  "A body to control" CANNOT be a requirement when accomplishments at the peak of intelligence do not involve controlling a body.

Your "requirements" are only obvious to you.  They are obviously wrong to everyone else.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2016,17:58   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 31 2016,17:49)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 31 2016,17:41)
A body to control, with no brain yet:

Red Cabbage & Egg Yolk Coacervates & Bubble
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA1OGYo-Syc

At least one out of the three requirements were met, with another simple egg experiment!

The theory must have that (very obvious to most) requirement, for origin of life/intelligence related work.

Nonsense.  "A body to control" CANNOT be a requirement when accomplishments at the peak of intelligence do not involve controlling a body.

Your "requirements" are only obvious to you.  They are obviously wrong to everyone else.

The only ones who ever had a problem with the requirement are in this thread. Everyone else is OK with it.

--------------
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.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2016,18:13   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 31 2016,18:58)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 31 2016,17:49)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 31 2016,17:41)
A body to control, with no brain yet:

Red Cabbage & Egg Yolk Coacervates & Bubble
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA1OGYo-Syc

At least one out of the three requirements were met, with another simple egg experiment!

The theory must have that (very obvious to most) requirement, for origin of life/intelligence related work.

Nonsense.  "A body to control" CANNOT be a requirement when accomplishments at the peak of intelligence do not involve controlling a body.

Your "requirements" are only obvious to you.  They are obviously wrong to everyone else.

The only ones who ever had a problem with the requirement are in this thread. Everyone else is OK with it.

Now Gary, you know that's just not true.

Everyone everywhere has found your effluent to be 'not even wrong'.
Everywhere you've tried drumming up support for it, it has been rejected.  You couldn't even get those idiots at UD to take you seriously.

You've never managed to address any of the criticisms raised.  At least not beyond the point of further tormenting your tortured prose.

And no, your pathetic 'programming quality award' is not an expression of support for your absurdist heap of twisted verbiage.

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2016,18:27   

Quote
The only ones who ever had a problem with the requirement are in this thread. Everyone else is OK with it.


Total bullshit, Goo Goo.  Obviously, you've never asked . . . .

Just like in here . . . .

:O

Whatta hoot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2016,18:41   

Let's try this, Gary.
The body is no more an explanatory factor for intelligence than the walls of a room are an explanatory factor for the color the room is painted.
That's why your usage in your ridiculous little over-generalized and under-specified diagram is laughable.
"The room is painted yellow because all the walls are rectangular."  Surely even you can see why that's absurd.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2016,18:56   

It's maybe no surprise that a person like me will receive hateful comments in a forum where Darwinian Evolutionary Algorithm junk is worshipped like a sacred cow. With the right connections there's good money in it too.

--------------
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.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2016,19:12   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 31 2016,19:56)
It's maybe no surprise that a person like me will receive hateful comments in a forum where Darwinian Evolutionary Algorithm junk is worshipped like a sacred cow. With the right connections there's good money in it too.

Exactly the pathetic whine we've come to expect from a congenital loser.
How is the body relevant to any explanation of intelligence?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2016,19:18   

And of course you find the same mudslingers in some other forums.

In fact the whole internet is going down the toilet on account of it being so pervasive:
www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/internet-hate

--------------
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.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2016,19:56   

Here's something relevant:
Quote
Folks, there is no empirical evidence that intelligence exists. Psychologists and ethologists refer to it as a hypothetical construct, and define it operationally. Intelligence may play the role of a cause in a model, but it is merely an abstraction of unidentified causes.

www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/gobsmackingly-stupid-things-materialists-say-entry-7687/

I hate to say it but this actually is (how they say) "Gobsmackingly Stupid".

--------------
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.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2016,20:52   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 31 2016,19:56)
Here's something relevant:
 
Quote
Folks, there is no empirical evidence that intelligence exists. Psychologists and ethologists refer to it as a hypothetical construct, and define it operationally. Intelligence may play the role of a cause in a model, but it is merely an abstraction of unidentified causes.

www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/gobsmackingly-stupid-things-materialists-say-entry-7687/

I hate to say it but this actually is (how they say) "Gobsmackingly Stupid".

You have provided no valid evidence supporting your concepts of intelligence.  You have not even provided an operational definition, so none of us, including you, have a good idea of what you are talking about (and we still wouldn't, even if your writing was competent and comprehensible).  That is truly gob-smackingly stupid on your part.  

Unlike you, psychologists do have an operational definition of intelligence, so notwithstanding all of the difficulties in getting a solid handle on intelligence, it is at least possible for different people to have a discussion while being confident that they are all talking about the same thing.  

As a lot of us have said earlier, saying that we don't have a good understanding of something is miles ahead of your position, sticking to assertions about something that are clearly wrong.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2016,21:19   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 31 2016,20:52)
Unlike you, psychologists do have an operational definition of intelligence,

After searching for this operational definition on the internet I found it be an obscure and possibly obsolete opinion.

This is how Psychology Today answers the question "What Is Intelligence?":
 
Quote
Reading a road map upside-down and generating synonyms for the word "brilliant" are two very different skills. But each is a measurable indicator of general intelligence, a construct that includes problem solving abilities, spatial manipulation and language acquisition. Scientists generally agree that intelligence can be captured by psychometric tests. But the study of intelligence is dogged by questions of just how much IQ contributes to an individual's success and well-being, how genes and environment interact to generate smarts and why the average IQ score rose throughout the world during the twentieth century.

www.psychologytoday.com/basics/intelligence

--------------
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.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2016,22:16   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 31 2016,21:19)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 31 2016,20:52)
Unlike you, psychologists do have an operational definition of intelligence,

After searching for this operational definition on the internet I found it be an obscure and possibly obsolete opinion.

This is how Psychology Today answers the question "What Is Intelligence?":
   
Quote
Reading a road map upside-down and generating synonyms for the word "brilliant" are two very different skills. But each is a measurable indicator of general intelligence, a construct that includes problem solving abilities, spatial manipulation and language acquisition. Scientists generally agree that intelligence can be captured by psychometric tests. But the study of intelligence is dogged by questions of just how much IQ contributes to an individual's success and well-being, how genes and environment interact to generate smarts and why the average IQ score rose throughout the world during the twentieth century.

www.psychologytoday.com/basics/intelligence

Yes, IQ scores (and particularly Spearman's general fator g) provide a reproducible, verifiable, operational definition of intelligence, and yes, since being devised in 1916 and despite huge amounts of work by many very smart people, IQ scores have remained problematic for the reasons mentioned - the factors that create it are insufficiently understood, how it correlates with success in life is at minimum complicated, and why IQ scores have risen worldwide over the last couple of generations is also unclear.  IQ scores are derived from some extremely sophisticated statistics (factor analysis), test out as having high statistical validity, and they do correlate with such things as mortality, morbidity, parental IQ, and parental social status, exposure to toxins and problems during gestation, school grades, job performance, choice of profession, and so forth.

As I said earlier, "Unlike you, psychologists do have an operational definition of intelligence, so notwithstanding all of the difficulties in getting a solid handle on intelligence, it is at least possible for different people to have a discussion while being confident that they are all talking about the same thing."


Wikipedia has a pretty good treatment ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......uotient  ),  
Quote
in Cattell - Horn - Carroll theory, a hierarchy of factors is used; g is at the top. Under it are ten broad abilities that in turn are subdivided into seventy narrow abilities. The broad abilities are:

   Fluid intelligence (Gf) includes the broad ability to reason, form concepts, and solve problems using unfamiliar information or novel procedures.
   Crystallized intelligence (Gc) includes the breadth and depth of a person's acquired knowledge, the ability to communicate one's knowledge, and the ability to reason using previously learned experiences or procedures.
   Quantitative reasoning (Gq) is the ability to comprehend quantitative concepts and relationships and to manipulate numerical symbols.
   Reading and writing ability (Grw) includes basic reading and writing skills.
   Short-term memory (Gsm) is the ability to apprehend and hold information in immediate awareness, and then use it within a few seconds.
   Long-term storage and retrieval (Glr) is the ability to store information and fluently retrieve it later in the process of thinking.
   Visual processing (Gv) is the ability to perceive, analyze, synthesize, and think with visual patterns, including the ability to store and recall visual representations.
   Auditory processing (Ga) is the ability to analyze, synthesize, and discriminate auditory stimuli, including the ability to process and discriminate speech sounds that may be presented under distorted conditions.
   Processing speed (Gs) is the ability to perform automatic cognitive tasks, particularly when measured under pressure to maintain focused attention.
   Decision/reaction time/speed (Gt) reflects the immediacy with which an individual can react to stimuli or a task (typically measured in seconds or fractions of seconds; it is not to be confused with Gs, which typically is measured in intervals of 2–3 minutes).

Modern tests do not necessarily measure all of these broad abilities. For example, Gq and Grw may be seen as measures of school achievement and not IQ. Gt may be difficult to measure without special equipment. g was earlier often subdivided into only Gf and Gc, which were thought to correspond to the nonverbal or performance subtests and verbal subtests in earlier versions of the popular Wechsler IQ test. More recent research has shown the situation to be more complex. Modern comprehensive IQ tests do not stop at reporting a single IQ score. Although they still give an overall score, they now also give scores for many of these more restricted abilities, identifying particular strengths and weaknesses of an individual.


Stephen J. Gould has a good and very readable, if now somewhat dated, discussion of some of the problems with IQ measurements and what they mean in "The Mismeasure of Man", and there are lots of more detailed references at the end of the Wikipedia article.

There is a huge, vast, complex literature here, with many discoveries and lots of controversies, all of which indicates that you rushed in to a complex topic with very little knowledge of the complications of the field.  Your pronouncements on intelligence have been ludicrous.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2016,22:33   

Well then thank goodness the computer model has core program variables that I only had to throw on the screen, and I was done. Everything needed to gauge how well it's doing and even how much fun it's having is all already right there.

--------------
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.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2016,22:43   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 31 2016,22:33)
Well then thank goodness the computer model has core program variables that I only had to throw on the screen, and I was done. Everything needed to gauge how well it's doing and even how much fun it's having is all already right there.

Yes, you just have variables, which are basically just labels, not careful and ground-truthed simulations of biochemical processes that develop from first principles.  You might as well be simulating a blizzard by a routine like Do: Snowflakes = Snowflakes + 1: Loop until Snowflakes > Blizzard.

So you have essentially nothing.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2016,23:39   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 31 2016,22:43)
Yes, you just have variables, which are basically just labels, not careful and ground-truthed simulations of biochemical processes that develop from first principles.

If Erwin Schrödinger or other great math/logic modeler were here right now then you would be in big big trouble, for saying that.

Operational definitions are not a substitute for being able to make it happen on paper, then later on a computer screen. All else is just talk...

--------------
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.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2016,05:52   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 31 2016,23:39)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 31 2016,22:43)
Yes, you just have variables, which are basically just labels, not careful and ground-truthed simulations of biochemical processes that develop from first principles.

If Erwin Schrödinger or other great math/logic modeler were here right now then you would be in big big trouble, for saying that.

Operational definitions are not a substitute for being able to make it happen on paper, then later on a computer screen. All else is just talk...


You're no Schrodinger.

Operational and theoretical definitions are a prerequisite for doing anything useful.

Modellers have to demonstrate that their algorithms are appropriate and that their math matches reality, otherwise it's no better that Snowflakes = Snowflakes + 1.  You haven't done that.

  
  18634 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (622) < ... 570 571 572 573 574 [575] 576 577 578 579 580 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]