NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 10 2014,06:50) | Ses chapter 10, Human Multicellular Intelligence
https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf
Now tell me what is Confidence and Central Hedonic System for?
Ignoring where else sensory goes while nitpicking proper electronics terminology is only more of the same scientific ridiculousness, I really don't have time for entertaining. |
It's abundantly clear what they are for -- they are for smuggling intelligence into your 'explanation', rendering it non-explanatory due to inherent circularity.
Your 'confidence' circuit does nothing but increment/decrement a memory counter, i.e., it is a direct pass-through to ram. Or it is a black box whose contents and functions require explanation.
Likewise for 'guess'. The circuit does nothing but store a value in memory. It is a pass-through. Or it is a black box that implements significant elements of intelligent that you are simply smuggling in rather than laying out and explaining.
Except, even worse, neither of these is actually a pass-through. What goes in is not what is read out. Why on earth are you showing a RAM system where what is written is never read and what is read is never what is written?
Do you not understand proper RAM notation?
Your diagram is ludicrous for all sorts of reasons, but the disconnect between input values and output values is hysterical. Note: that is 'hysterical', as in wildly funny, not 'hysteresis' which is a word for a technical concept you have probably stumbled across.
Compounding the stupidity, why are light, sound, odor and proprioception the only elements considered? We have many more than 4 senses. Further, there is vast evidence that insofar as memory is 'addressed' by sensory input, proportional weighting of visual, auditory, and other sensory inputs changes dynamically. Motor muscles are not the only source of interoceptive senses. You do not account for this. If you consider that they are, you have left touch, temperature perception, etc., out of your flow entirely.
Worse, you have not merely abstracted all this detail, you have laid out that these few of the many senses are the only ones involved, that they jointly (by summation?) feed both a 'confidence circuit' [smuggling intelligence into the flow] and apparently directly set the locations into which data will be written as well as the separate locations from which data will be read.
Given the manifold flaws and incoherencies of the diagram, we are justified in suggesting that it boils down to sensory data comes in and motor control goes out, with no processing. It is not incorrect to evaluate the entire "system" as a pass-through from sensory input to motor output. The very most that could be granted beyond that is it is a pass-through with feedback, but the feedback is only through motor sensation.
But even an idiot can casually recognize that there are multiple interacting feedback paths that are at most inflected by motor feedback.
Thus, everything in your diagram beyond 'senses come in to RAM and motor control goes out' is an attempt to elaborate the hoax that you have not just an understanding of intelligence but an explanation for it.
Your 'explanation' no more provides the foundation for understanding or explaining intelligence than the paint color of the stairwells in the Empire State Building provides the foundation for that skyscraper.
The reason you don't have time for 'entertaining' the questions and criticisms raised against your effluent is that you are too busy whitewashing your own confusion to attend to rectifying it.
|
