N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 03 2015,11:07) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 02 2015,20:41) | | Good luck trying to get Gary to give you either a regular definition for what he means by intelligence or an operational definition. At best you are going to get "The Diagram". |
Scientific theories require scientific definitions, not "regular definitions" that are commonly found in dictionaries. A useful scientific definition looks like this one that is from the TheoryOfIntelligentDesign.pdf:
| Quote | | Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] Something to control (body or modeling platform) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. [3] Confidence (central hedonic, homeostasis) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail. [4] Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”. |
|
A) That's not a useful scientific definition - quite the opposite in fact. B) You have yet to provide anything even vaguely approaching an operational definition: it is impossible to imagine how to measure what you identify as intelligence.
I usually phrase my objections to your lack of a regular definition more along the lines of your not providing an acceptable, logically valid definition. Scientific definitions are "regular definitions": both need to be precise and accurate. You do attempt to provide a sort of a regular definition, but your attempt is a dismal failure. My complaint is not that you aren't using a standard definition of intelligence - you aren't, but it is perfectly acceptable in science to redefine terms in order to gain a better understanding and/or explanation of something. However, the deviation from standard past practice needs to be justified (you don't do that), and it needs to be clear (yours is anything but, because your skills at English are so atrocious), and it needs to be logically valid (yours isn't anywhere close to that either). Your attempted definition excludes stuff that we think of as the epitome of intelligence (planning an action, evaluating your life, dreaming of a loved one, thinking up a melody, mentally calculating compounded interest, thinking through a problem, etc., etc., etc.) It includes stuff that is clearly NOT intelligent: a Neato robot vacuum cleaner fulfills all your requirements for intelligence. It would be reasonable to suppose that the earliest glimmers of intelligence began as controlling physical (muscular) responses to stimuli, but that's not what you say. Your daffynition is full of ludicrous ad hoc hail-Mary ploys: writing to a screen or sending a signal to a speaker is not "motor muscles in action". Appeals to RAM are irrelevant, misleading, and unnecessary. Ability to guess is not a requisite characteristic of intelligence (indeed, falling back on a guess is more usually a sign of the failure of intelligence), although the ability to learn from the outcomes of experience that likely includes past guesses would be more reasonable as part of the definition of intelligence. "Confidence" is inappropriate: "paranoid reaction" is a much more reasonable and more useful character for a hypothetical proto-mind. Gary, you have not provided any evidence for a 'confidence tallying system', although ironically the same natural selection that you so disdains has been documented as a very vigorous accumulator of past successes and culler of prior failures. If we are talking about proto-minds, most of the brain was likely to have been assembled as a concentration of neurons in charge of completely unconscious controls and responses (control of digestion, peristalsis of intake and output pipes, shell closure, movement away from a touch or orientation of spines toward a touch, and so forth), long before any significant intelligence or consciousness arose. And on and on and on.
And as with so much of your stuff, the final sentence that you quote simply begs your desired conclusion, asserting design without justifying it or supporting it in any way.
| Quote | | If you are correct then will be able to present a model of an intelligent system or device that does not perform any real or virtual motor actions at all. It cannot speak, play a musical instrument, write a symphony, move itself or another object, etc. |
No we don't have to do that, because the thing itself exists, and its mere existence shows your argument to be rubbish.
|
