"No, it very most certainly does not." Nonsense! Of course "feedback" implies intelligence.
I'm sorry, your declaring it and adding an exclamation point simply does not make it so.
Tell me, what sort of intelligence is involved when a microphone picks up the sound from a too-close loudspeaker, and squawking results? (And if you say, "because someone had to invent the microphone, I'm going to have to write you off entirely.) There's also feedback in purely natural processes, such as the way that waves pile sand near a beach, and then the new shape of the sand affects the waves, which affects the sand, which... Where's the "intelligence" in that?
Feedback is simply when the results of a process are not fully isolated from the "inputs" of the same process and affects the future input. This happens by accident far more often than by intelligence intervention.
Are you sure you have any grasp of the concepts you're preaching about?
Heck, try a dictionary even:
feed-back (feed'bak ) n. 1. a. the return of part of the output of a circuit, system, or device to the input, either purposely or unintentionally, as in the reflux of sound from a loudspeaker to a microphone in a public-address system.
-- Random House Webster's, College Edition
If the monkeys in the math simile for this thread are compelled to read a dictionary and select their output based upon its "fitness", then you have injected intelligence into the math proof both with the dictionary (which takes intelligence to compile) as well as with the monkeys (who would have to determine what part of their output is to be kept and built upon with future keystrokes). Wow, what a lame "proof" of your point. Yes, if the monkeys were intelligent, then that would involve intelligence in the one particular example of feedback you chose to describe.
That's hardly the same as demonstrating that feedback is impossible without intelligence, though. Nice try. Get a good book on Logic 101 sometime, it'll help you learn how to forumalate valid arguments.
You did read the post #100, its predecessors, and its replies, didn't you?
Yup, sure did. It was just you stamping your feet and declaring that feedback can't happen without intelligence, again without supporting argument.
Well, at least read post #444.
Been there, done that. I'll dismantle it in my forthcoming post. See you there.
You are recovering old, long disproven ground in this thread.
No, I'm re-covering old ground where people previously pointed out the flaws in your position but you failed to accept it (or even understand it, many times).
Thus my earlier post about wondering if it would be worth taking the time to spell things out for you, or whether you'll just declare "is so!" again.
"That's hardly the same as demonstrating that feedback is impossible without intelligence, though. Nice try. Get a good book on Logic 101 sometime, it'll help you learn how to forumalate valid arguments."
What you've failed to comprehend is that I NEVER said that natural feedback was "impossible".
What I said was that INJECTING the kind of feedback mentioned by the poster (circa Post #100 & #104) was adding aided intelligence into what was otherwise an unaided process.
The poster in #100 (or thereabouts) wanted the monkeys to read a dictionary and then choose which of their outputs should be kept or discarded. Well, that ADDS intelligence into a process (both via the dictionary as well as in the monkeys having to make an intelligent choice).
Thus, that sort of feeback implies intelligence. QED.