k.e..
Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007
|
| Quote (NoName @ June 03 2015,20:39) | | Quote (N.Wells @ June 03 2015,10:59) | | Quote (NoName @ June 03 2015,08:40) | As always, the problem here is that you, Gary, have no clue as to what 'emergence' is, why or how it is a problem, and why and how it is the explanation for the transition from 'simple' physics and chemistry to biochemistry to life to intelligence.
Nothing in your effluent treats emergence, rather you take it for granted, or, more often, simply ignore it.
Could this be due to the fact that emergence is the death-knell for your "layers" of 'intelligence' as "conceptualized" [hah] by you. |
He asserts it, and then does nothing to back up the assertion.
To be fair, the evolutionary view is somewhat comparable in that intelligence is presumed to have emerged as animals evolve a sufficient number, concentration, and interconnectedness of neurons. Scientists have gone beyond Jerison's Encephalization Quotient, but as far as I know scientists haven't operationalized low-level animal intelligence or produced scatterplots relating intelligence to those parameters (or others, AFAIK, but I'm not expert in those fields). We recognize that "intelligence" remains complex and ill-defined, so we don't proceed to build a house of cards on that presumption, but rather we live with "We don't (yet) know" because larger conclusions remain premature. Instead, people do a whole lot of reductionist hypothesis-testing regarding small and knowable subsets of behavior and brain anatomy. Gary just jumps at an attempt at a grand picture with zero grounding and no facts or definitions under control.
From Gary,
| Quote | | I cannot redefine intelligence. |
Either do exactly that or use it according to standard meanings, rather than using a mess of word salad that includes Neato vacuum cleaners but leaves out Beethoven thinking up a symphony. |
With all due respect, and that is considerable, I have to say that while I agree completely with the thrust of your arguments, there is an underlying issue that is not being addressed, and should be.
That question is whether or not 'intelligence' as commonly understood is univocal enough to permit a useful definition, operational or not.
It seems highly likely to me that 'intelligence' is one of those words that gets multiple usages, multiple definitions, and even in those cases where precision is most wanted, it gets tossed around as if "everyone knows" what it is.
Consider merely the difference in meaning between 'military intelligence', 'Central Intelligence Agency', 'Intelligent Design', 'Artificial Intelligence', and 'Intelligence Quotient'.
These are less easily distinguished at the definitional level because there are multiple abstractions collapsed into the term.
I am perfectly prepared to say that until there is a useful univocal definition of 'intelligence', no explanation for it can be sought. 'Intelligence' is not a phenomenon in the mold of 'velocity'.
This is, of course, one of the reasons that an operational definition is required -- operationalizing the term should render it univocal. Or expose the fact that it is inherently equivocal and that there are specific elements or aspects of intelligence that are necessary but not sufficient. And that there may be elements or aspects that are sufficient but not necessary.
But I am all but certain that we will find that any useful definition of 'intelligence' will point up the fact that 'intelligence' is a generalization that points to a set of phenomena such that the full set consists of necessary and sufficient conditions but useful subsets do not overlap in either or both necessary and sufficient conditions.
Gary's "bug navigation" pseudo-exmple certainly points in a direction where there may actually be actual-factual genuine intelligence at play, and yet utilizes only a subset of necessary and sufficient conditions strictly disjoint from those that apply in, say, the composition of a melody, or the recognition of a transposed melody.
We all, myself included, fall too easily into the trap of taking seriously claims to have an explanation for 'intelligence' and rejecting the explanation, rather than the misuse and abuse of the term.
Which takes us right back to the necessity of a clear, specific, operational definition for *any* researcher making claims about intelligence. |
Boys boys boys. Gary uses the word intelligence as creationist dog whistle code for God of the Christian Bible. He can't define God. No one can he is hung by his own petard. He is not interested in playing your game of pathetic level of detail. As long he thinks onlookers sees his lips moving/galloping he thinks he's winning. It's just spin and airtime as far as he is concerned.
--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
|
