NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 18 2015,08:16) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 17 2015,10:05) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 17 2015,06:42) | | I made progress showing the same network as neurons. Stay tuned.. |
Which would be completely irrelevant to the documented claims that the PSC VB code of 2011/11/22 had "NEURONS".
It doesn't matter what Gary goes on to do after his embarrassing episode of saying that he had things in his code that manifestly do not exist. That faux pas is documented and does exist. |
I seriously don't have time for your defamatory word games that go in circles until even you are dizzy from them. |
Seriously? Wow, we're all impressed.
So how is you don't have time to address any of these, which are neither defamatory nor 'word games'?
Man up Gary.
| Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 31 2014,09:31) | You've got a whole lot of transparent and ineffective distraction going on, Gary.
As NoName said earlier,
| Quote | Stop deflecting, distracting, and denying. Man up and deal with the facts on the ground:
A phenomenon is not properly called 'emergent' when it arises from a set of phenomena to which it is properly called 'self-similar'. And vice versa.
Not all acts of 'intelligence' are motor acts, yet your "theory" insists otherwise. This flies in the face of your assertion that your, or any competing, "theory" must "explain how ANY intelligence system works."
Deal with the fact that you smuggle 'intelligence' into your module with the undefined and uncharacterized 'guess' function.
Deal with the fact that 'guess' does not equal 'plan'. Your "theory" is useless as a 'theory of intelligence' if it cannot deal with plans and planning.
Deal with the fact that many acts of intelligence involve imagination, and your "theory" does not deal with imagination at all.
Deal with the fact that some of the most crucial constraints on life are thermodynamic and that your "theory" simply ignores any and all thermodynamic issues.
Etc. |
| Quote | What is the ‘something’ that must be controlled when an intelligence creates a theory? a musical composition? a plan? a story plot line?
Note that none of these require muscle activity of any sort.
What are the senses that address what memory/memories when an intelligence creates a theory? a musical composition? a plan? a story plot line?
Note that each of these has been performed by individuals who lack the 'obvious' sensory modalities one would expect for the product.
Sub-question — what does it mean for memory to be sensory-addressed? The naive view that has the senses directly writing to memory or directly “indicating” what memory to use and what to store there has been debunked many many years ago. So what are you talking about here?
What is the measure of confidence to gauge failure and success when an intelligence creates a theory? a musical composition? a plan? a story plot line?
Sub-question — what senses address what memory/memories in the creation, storage, and retrieval of the ‘confidence’ factor? Is it analog or digital? What process(es) modify it, at what points, and what difference does it make?
What is the ‘ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS’? How is it manifested and how is it utilized when an intelligence creates a theory? a musical composition? a plan? a story plot line?
What is a guess? How does ‘guess’ relate to ‘plan’ and to ‘imagination? Are there factors that feed into/influence the guess? Is a guess random? If not, what regularity does it exhibit? Is it algorithmic? What algorithm? Or how is the specific algorithm used chosen?
What justifies embedding ‘guess’ into the “flow” that defines “intelligence” when the ability to guess is generally taken to be an act of intelligence? How is it we only find guessing happening when we find ‘molecular intelligence’ in your sense, i.e., biology?
(You do realize that a random number generator in a computer program does not ‘guess’?) |
And questions from me:
| Quote | Why is your rubbish not made obsolete by Edgar Postrado's rubbish?
| Quote |
It is also unreasonable to expect out of place detail that would limit the theory to only one level of intelligence (brains) of a model that has to work for any behavior, intelligent or not. |
Since you see intelligence darn near everywhere at all levels, in your opinion what behavior would qualify as not intelligent, and why? |
... |
|
