NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
Gary, we've been working around your punctuation errors for years now.
There's nothing going on that's about "who's in charge". You desperately want it to be about power and a power struggle, which in and of itself shows your complete cluelessness about science, the process.
All that's going on is showing that you have nothing of any value to anyone other than yourself.
It is not a theory.
It has no basis in facts.
As a result, it has, nor can it bring to bear, any evidence.
It cannot account for a host of facts which it must be able to account for to live up to its billing. We have brought quite a number of those to your attention; you persist in pretending that the issues do not exist and have never been mentioned.
Thus, it fails due to the inherent dishonesty and lack of integrity of its author.
It cannot account for what it purports to due in no small measure to its mangled prose, it's incompetent redefinition of standard terms, its refusal to abide by standard usage for terms of art within Cognitive Science, despite your frequent claims to be 'working' 'within that area/field/specialty/discipline'. In point of fact, it uses standard terms in ways flatly contradictory to the standard definitions, as, for example, its abuse of the term 'learn' and its variants.
It is circular in that it smuggles the ideas it is meant to explain in as part of the purported explanation. Leaving aside the simple and obvious fact that no explanation can be found anywhere in the "theory" there is the problem that you cannot define a thing solely in terms of itself. Nor in terms that hinge on the thing being explained plus some additional decorations.
It contradicts known facts, such as its absurd notions regarding how memory is formed, stored, retrieved, and what role it plays in intelligence. My most recent link serves as the most recent occurrence of the provision of evidence of your errors that you continue to dishonestly insist is never presented.
It fails due to a complete lack of operational definitions of key terms, such as 'intelligence'.
It is decorated with one of the most banal and useless "premises" in the history of writing -- "some features [never to be specified in any manner whatsoever] are best explained by 'intelligent cause'". Insofar as it is meaningful, it is not only banal, it is entirely uncontroversial. NO ONE is attempting to argue that there is no such thing as intelligence that serves as the best explanation for certain facts in and about the world. B.F.Skinner was the last to attempt something like that, and his work is all but forgotten as an embarrassment these days. Your 'work' will never rise to the level of attention required for anyone, ever, to describe it as 'forgotten by science', not least because it is not, nor can it be, any part of science.
This is due to your complete ignorance of both science, the product, and science, the process. You abuse both, but we are prepared to be gracious and suggest that this is due to massive ignorance and incompetence rather than malice or ill-will.
Most damning of all, and the ultimate ground on which your efforts are obliterated by the adversity of facts, is that you have never, ever, used your "theory" to explain any phenomenon, least of all the ones people have asked you to explain in terms of your "theory". Your absurdist software neither implements your "theory" nor is susceptible to explanation by your "theory". The most you have ever done is assert, without foundation or evidence, that your "theory" can or does 'explain' various facts. No explanation is ever forthcoming, and clear demonstration of how and why your "theory" is incapable of explaining said phenomena remain entirely unaddressed by you.
The only value of your output is to serve as a bad example for others to avoid rather than emulate. And there are better 'bad examples' out there -- yours is not only redundant, it isn't even good enough to be exemplary as a failure.
Deal with it.
|
