"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.
What you've failed to comprehend is that I NEVER said that natural feedback was "impossible". You kept insisting that feedback in a system "implies intelligence":
"Feedback" implies intelligent intervention into the process. (Post 98) Nonsense! Of course "feedback" implies intelligence. (Post 489)
But hey, if you want to back off that position and agree that natural feedback is quite possible, I'll accept that.
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.
And this is a non sequitur.
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.
No, actually, he didn't. The dictionary and having the monkeys do the filtering was *your* idea.
Well, that ADDS intelligence into a process (both via the dictionary as well as in the monkeys having to make an intelligent choice).
This overcomplication of the selection process was your own, so I'm hardly impressed by your jumping up and down and pointing out how complicated it is.
Your original statement was:
Of course "feedback" implies intelligence.You are now claiming: What you've failed to comprehend is that I NEVER said that natural feedback was "impossible".
Which side of the issue do you wish to argue today?