NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
In typical primate fashion, when Gary feels threatened he resorts to flinging virtual feces and posturing.
Of course, in his usual complete ineptitude at biology, he thinks calling people 'assholes' is an insult. Yet imagine where we would be without them? We would all be as full of shit as Gary is.
Try drinking piledrivers, Gary. Enough of them might help.
[piledriver recipe: vodka and prune juice mixed 1 to 3 or 1 to 4]
Time, perhaps, to revisit some recent criticisms that Gary would prefer to ignore:
| Quote |
Some references that could help Gary see where he's going wrong and at least bring him into the previous century for Cognitive Science and Biology:
Gurwitsch, Aron, The Field of Consciousness
Goldstein, Kurt, The Organism
Winograd, Terry, and Fernando Flores, Understanding Computers and Cognition
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 21 2014,17:31) | Or in other words we perceive a mapped out virtual spatial representation in our brain with directional vectors showing possible paths from place to place like this:
 |
Relevant to the above referenced works and Gary's appalling misunderstandings of biology, sentience, and sapience, it is worth pointing out how clearly we can see the flawed basis of his code and his claims in this diagram.
Gary, it may be convenient, probably even necessary, to model the world in terms of discrete cells with boundaries and individual identities.
The flaw, of course, is that this is in no way an accurate model of how we experience the world. Neither humans nor animals experience a world of 'discrete bits' that lead to being aware of a finite set of 'discrete paths', all of which you assert are in working memory at once.
On your model, there are an infinite number of 'possible paths' available to the experiencing being because there are no boundaries, no edges, no discrete cells along which or through which the paths must cross. There is a field in which the operational concerns of the biological entity operate, and multiple interacting gradients within the field which elicit certain behaviors. There is a 'never-ending' flux of goals, drives, and attractions all interacting to modify and update the more and less desirable actions and which all reciprocally interact to influence the totality of the complex system of biological entity<>environment as perceived.
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 21 2014,17:31) | | Or in other words we perceive a mapped out virtual spatial representation in our brain with directional vectors showing possible paths from place to place ... |
One glaring problem with this tedious nonsense is that there is no evidence supporting a view that we carry around with us in either perception or memory or as a mental model a 'mapped out virtual spatial representation' of the world we inhabit.
At the very least, you are overlooking the figure/ground relationship which is a perceptual fundamental -- our world is not, ever, "all there laying clearly under our mental gaze." It presents itself in a figure/ground relationship where the horizon is fuzzy and indeterminate in crucial ways. We never have anything but a partial view, from a given perspective, essentially incomplete, and presented in terms of figure/ground highlighting the salient features and relatively obscuring the rest.
Another problem with this hopelessly flawed approach is that it falls to one of the complaints I raised about your "theory". There is no need for any creature to have a 'map' of 'all possible routes', and it is vanishingly unlikely that any creature would bother with such a map.
What's missing is relevance. Biological entities do not simply wander from place to place without drives, attractions, purposes of one form or another.
Neither your "theory" nor your software accounts for the purposeful nature of motion in space. In general, all a creature needs is a current goal and that subset of 'all possible paths' that would permit greater proximity to that goal. There is no need, no biological relevance, for having 'all possible paths' in memory.
If the movement is purposeful, as the vast majority of biological movement is, then paths can be rapidly evaluated to find suitable paths (not necessarily the best of all possible paths) and perhaps evaluate amongst those for 'the best'. Note that 'the best' cannot be evaluated without reference to the specific goal of the specific creature in its specific context. There is no need for, and no evidence of, 'complete mapping of all possible paths' by any creature. Evolution explains this, your twaddle prefers to pretend the problem doesn't even exist.
If the movement is not purposeful, no awareness of 'all possible paths' is necessary or desirable, any old 'possible path' will do just as well as any other.
As was so painfully obvious, and so painfully problematic, in your "theory", so too with your software -- you have no place in your model (either of them), no conceptual apparatus with which to grapple with, handle, or explain, intent. No setting, updating, modifying, or evaluating as fulfilled whatever goals or purposes drive the creature.
As one result, you have no way for the creature to evaluate the potentialities presented by the milieu because from the perspective of your model, there is neither goal nor milieu.
So, your are still hopelessly muddled in a conceptual (to be generous) schema that is disconnected from both biology and the rest of the world of nature. As a result, nothing you accomplish can possibly be meaningful or useful to biology.
This alone is sufficient warrant to discard your software as having any applicability to biological entities and their interactions with the world in which they live and function.
It is as if we were calculating loads, stresses, top speed, carrying capacity and range of the XB-70 bomber from the 1/72 scale plastic model that was available some years back.
This is not an impedance mismatch that can be overcome, it is such a fundamentally flawed approach as to be unsusceptible to rescue. The modeling approach doesn't fit, which means either the way the world works is wrong or you model is wrong. And it is quite clear that it is your model that is wrong.
You are no better at modeling the world of biological action in software than you were at modeling intelligence in "theory".
|
|
