Posted: Mar 13, 2016 5:06 pm
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Thank you for your post.Calilasseia wrote:I see he's still posting the contents of his discoursive rectal passage. As for his books, they're illiterate tripe. Frankly, I'd enjoy more success at trying to teach spinor calculus to my tropical fish, than trying to extract a meaningful and substantive response from him. I cite as evidence, this other trainwreck of a thread he launched.
A more in depth examination of his drivel can be perused in full here. Where he duly turned up and demonstrated yet again, that his discoursive abilities begin and end with spam-pasting the same cortical faecal matter over and over again, interspersed with episodes of self-aggrandisement and hyperbolic self-publicising of his purported "abilities", whilst providing zero actual substance to support the requisite assertions. His palsied and encephalitic display of fail in that thread included being unable (like every other creationist) to determine the difference between a rock shaped by mindless natural forces and a rock shaped by a human applying cognition to the task, and defining "intelligence" as failure to follow a simple instruction. I kid you not, you can read that thread and find out for yourselves. That's before we cover his elementary failure to understand probability, as understood by every competent mathematician on the planet.
To give an example of the level of fuckwittery he's presented, his drivel included the assertion that being asked to fetch a single paper clip, and upon receiving this request, fetching a truckload of them, constituted "intelligence". Yes, this is the level of stupidity on display here.
Even before we dwell upon his failure to understand the concept of parsimony as being a genuine indicator of intelligence, and his failure to understand the actual workings of the scientific paradigm, with respect to the maintenance or abandonment of working hypotheses, there's the little matter of his manifest inability to recognise that data processing is an essential part of any phenomenon that warrants the description "intelligent". But best of all, he also delivered another incarnation of the Dunsapy Bop, in which he was unable to tell the difference between the interactions between entities in an experiment, and the interactions of the experimenters in constructing and analysing the experiment. You can have fun looking at that piece of epic fail here.
I think you are posting your "explanation" of intelligence without referring to the 70+ definitions of intelligence that is being published now in arxiv (LINK: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.3639.pdf).
From that paper, we have definition 19 from the list derived from psychologists, viz:
19. “. . . the resultant of the process of acquiring, storing in memory, retrieving, combining, comparing, and using in new contexts information and conceptual skills.” Humphreys
What that cited author described above was data processing. Or did you not bother actually reading the paper in question?
Likewise, definition 10 from AI researchers, is listed thus:
10. “Intelligence is the computational part of the ability to achieve goals in the world. Varying kinds and degrees of intelligence occur in people, many animals and some machines.” J. McCarthy [25]
Again, this describes data processing.
While we're at it, you might like to ask yourself, how it is that the programmers at Google were able to develop AlphaGo, a program that has now beaten the world's best Go player at a game requiring intelligence (however that may be defined) to play successfully, whilst not once referencing any of your drivel?
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Have you ever tried putting all those 70 definitions in a simple mathematical formula so that we could categorize a n
intelligence X
to
non-intelligence X?
What part of "this is an area of active research in the world of real science" do you not understand? None of which lends any credence to the illiterate drivel you're posting here?
And what part of the words "data processing" do you also not understand?
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:If you could do it, you could probably come to the same conclusion with me.
Poppycock. First of all, your fatuous idea that bringing a ton of paperclips into an office when one is requested, purportedly constitutes "intelligence", is so risible as to be beneath deserving of a point of view. That's before we factor in your failure to understand elementary probability.
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:PLEASE, do science and use simple math
Ahem, if "simple math" was all that was required to unlock the secrets of intelligence, this would have been done long ago. It's precisely because even defining intelligence in a rigorous manner is difficult, let alone instantiating intelligent processing on an alternative substrate to a human brain, that this hasn't been done. Or did this elementary concept elude you, whilst you were pretending that your illiterate hologram of the imagination constituted some priceless artefact of genius?
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:and see if your knowledge on "intelligence" is really scientific and conforms to reality..
Yours certainly doesn't. So before you posture as being in a position to lecture me on proper scientific conduct, I suggest you learn to do this yourself.
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Do you want me to spoon feed you?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
If you think you're in a position to "spoon feed" me on anything, then I respectfully suggest that this constitutes a clinically significant delusion on your part. You can't even demonstrate an elementary understanding of probability.
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:I don't do it since I believe that you are also educated in school like me...
I'd ask your teachers for your money back. They manifestly failed in your case.
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:TRY it and see if you can...
Heh, there's nothing I'd love better than to secure a grant for AI research. But if I did, I wouldn't be referencing any of your drivel. Not least because I'm aware of the intricacies of data processing, courtesy of years spent in software development. During which I learned the hard lesson, that merely having access to a given set of data isn't enough, what is needed is the ability to process that data, and derive new inferences from that data. Something which, lo and behold, another piece of software, in the form of the Isabelle theorem prover, happens to be capable of doing. You can learn more about Isabelle here.