Joined: Sep. 2017
|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"?|
|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.
We have explained countless times to you why that is a bunch of useless woo-woo. Here, I'll just quote the last time someone laid it out for you. You never got around to addressing these points, so maybe you want to take this opportunity to fix that oversight?
Otherwise don't bother copy-pasting your gibberish over and over.