Joined: Oct. 2005
A proposed explanation becomes a theory as it attracts more scientists to work on it, as it passes more and more tests, and as the scientists who work on it attract more research funding. Measures of acceptance include papers that support it in turn accumulating long citation records, having many OTHER people refer to it as a theory, having scientists develop research projects that win funding after peer review on the basis of predictions made from the new ideas, and having it become covered in university textbooks (and at lower levels later). When people can win funding by saying that they are going to investigate some aspect of the tectonic history of Greece, or look at earthquake locations under Japan in order to better understand subduction, then it becomes obvious that plate tectonics has become a widely accepted theory. Plate tectonics did not become a theory just because someone said, "hey, I am convinced that continents move around", and then failed to support it any further or test it in any way.
Wrong again - there's no such thing as a "not-yet-a-theory theory". They just aren't theories, like your rubbish, for example.
|these not yet a theory theories |
Pretty much anywhere will do just fine, although in labs and in the field are traditional.
|And exactly where must these not yet a theory theories pass a variety of tests|
You link to that Wikipedia illustration for the scientific method. That's not a bad summary, except that it leaves a lot out (science doesn't proceed by THE (or A) scientific method so much as it proceeds by many scientific methods). Nonetheless, you don't do any of that. Where is your hypothesis testing? Where are your hypotheses? Where are their tests? Where are your observations of nature (for example, the ones that led you conclude that insects have hippocampi, a neocortex, and only four legs)? Some interesting questions would be nice. Note the words "relevant data" and "thorough testing". You might consider applying the dictum that general theories must be consistent with most or all available data.
Once again your cited conflation of stuff does not amount to a theory.
The nearest thing you have to a definition of intelligence is:
|Behavior qualifies as intelligent by meeting four circuit requirements:|
(1) Something to control (real or virtual body) with motor muscles (protein, electric, etc).
(2) 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.
(4) Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases
This remains total crap. As has been pointed out before, this excludes lots of stuff that epitomizes intelligence (thinking fondly of a loved one, planning your future, evaluating your life, composing a symphony....). It's also wrong: autofocus cameras, sophisticated thermostats, and Neato vacuum cleaners do all of the things you mention without being intelligent. You insist that mushrooms are intelligent, yet they do almost none of those things. #1 is ad-hocced to the point of being ridiculous (a virtual body has motor muscles?, an electronic write-to-screen is some sort of motor muscle apparatus?), and it still doesn't apply. Also, the earliest appearance of intelligence may have been about controlling movement, but that's certainly not the case now.
For #2, RAM is not intelligence. "Sensory sensors"? - Good grief.
For #3, evolution of instinctive behaviors, which you include in intelligence, works on the basis of differential reproductive success, not assessment of confidence.
For #4, intelligence is not the ability to make a guess, which is ultimately a random decision in the face of uncertainty, but the ability to learn from the results of having guessed in the past in order to make more educated guesses in the future.
|Without this the virtual critter just keeps getting zapped by the moving shock zone. It is unable to figure out how to go around then wait for when it is safe to eat the food. When young the ID Lab #5 critter is more brave and inquisitive. It will at times ignore the food to get a closer “look” at the invisible shock zone area, which is behavior that on its own emerged from the wave interactions. The path to the attractor/food it wants is then not a direct path. It's thus drawn towards the edge of the zone even though it's a longer route to take.|
Massive baseless anthropomorphizing that is convincing to no one but you. Don't assert, but rather document and back up your claims.