Re: Heuristics vs Extensional method
me...@meow.dom
[NWO, war, Iraq, propaganda, brainwashing, mind control, deceit,
zombie, Illuminati, Skull and Bones]
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities
that were used for the production of biological weapons."
--- Adolph Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002
====================== Quote End ========================
In article <3f6PlSA845E$Ew...@longley.demon.co.uk>, David Longley
<Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <bevspr$212g$4...@news.ukr.net>, nucleus <nuc...@in.valid.addr>
>writes
>>In article <35fae540.03071...@posting.google.com>,
>>L.F...@lycos.co.uk (Acme Debugging) wrote:
>>>"Bill Modlin" <mod...@metrocast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:<MpKdnfIR3ov...@metrocast.net>...
>>>>
>>><snip comments on prior posts>
>>>
>>>>> The problems with intensional idiom and fragmented behavior are
>>>indeed
>>>>> philosophically interesting,
>>
>>As long, as you are willing to be a conman.
>
>You're just being rude and offensive. If you doubt all this, just look
>up the books and articles on Google. Check out human irrationality, or
>look up the references in http://www.longley.demon.col.uk/Frag.htm
You just state it RIGHT HERE.
Argue your case if you wish.
For example, I like the subject of "intesional idiom".
Sounds pretty scientific.
Zo, you are welcome to define it.
As to "fragmented behavior",
that is aobut one of my favorite subjects.
Here is a space for you to cover these subjects:
Enough?
Or you need more?
>Being abusive won't make this evidence go away.
What "evidence" are you fabricating here?
Can I SEE that "evidence"?
>My point is not to argue this whole case again, it is empirically well
>established and documented. It is rather to try to make the implications
>of a particular thesis for AI workers clear.
Well, I simply have pretty simple notions:
Purpose and Intent.
Intent is a directional expression of ones essense
[in exploration of life].
Simple, ain't it?
So argue if you wish.
I won't even expand it further.
Seems to be obvious to a 5 year old.
All these "intensional idioms",
"extensional stance" is but smart sounding something,
clarifying nothing.
>If people build AI systems based on the same mechanisms used for human
>or other animal natural decision making, they'll have to educate their
>systems to use the Extensional Stance.
Here ya go.
:---}
I claim you are "wrong".
Why?
Well, because you did not even define
the purpose for that AI.
Nor didn't you define its scope and domain.
Zo...
What ARE we building here?
Can you define that much?
Are we building the carbon copy of that,
which is ALREADY there, a biological Intelligence?
But what is lacking the the REAL one then?
You think you can jam pack all your ideas
into the gadget of the size of a human brain,
or even body?
I'd LOVE to see that.
The only thing I'd be probably looking at,
is how to crack its code and make it lock up.
Because that thing will be the deadliest thing
there ever was I have PLENTY of reasons to believe.
>This amounts to teaching them
>science, or, practically, technology/engineering.
So, it is some kind of a school here?
I thought they are ALREADY being taught by
the "experts" in the field of AI.
Marvin Minsky came here recently and "taught" them
something and I like that.
> Now that is
>essentially what Engineering already is in many areas. We programme
>computers, robots and other systems to do specific, algorithmically
>driven tasks.
Yes, and that is about ALL you can do.
>For many, this might explain why AI never seems to get anywhere, or why
>it never gets any credit for its products.
"Smart bombs" is enough of a "credit".
It allows one to control the entire planet.
"AI never seems to get anywhere"
because you are blind
and are following blind,
not even knowing what you are seeking
and for what purpose.
And so you build these dumb things
from "bottom up", hoping to pile enough
of those neurods together one day
to create a mere carbon copy of what is
already there.
You can not possibly exceed that.
Because in order to do that,
you'd have to become...
Well, GOD.
See the scope of the "problem"?
====================== Quote Begin ======================
"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur."
--- Adolph Bush
====================== Quote End ========================
me...@meow.dom
"Foster Bailey, an occultist and a 32nd degree Mason, said that
"Masonry is the descendant of a divinely imparted religion"
that antedates the prime date of creation.
Bailey goes on to say that
"Masonry is all that remains to us of the first world religion"
which flourished in ancient times.
"It was the first unified world religion. Today we are working
again towards a world universal religion."
====================== Quote End ========================
In article <bf1747$s10$1...@husk.cso.niu.edu>, Neil W Rickert
<ricke...@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
>><ricke...@cs.niu.edu> writes
>>>David Longley <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>>In article <bev21b$f86$3...@husk.cso.niu.edu>, Neil W Rickert
>>>><ricke...@cs.niu.edu> writes
>>>>>David Longley <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>>>>Your description of what happens with reports is about right. Your
>>>>>mistake is to assume that this constitutes a problem.
>
>>>>It's a problem when the task is to count or classify as people disagree
>>>>on their classifications. The issue becomes one of interpretation and
>>>>not observation. This is not science but art.
>
>>>If that's a problem, it is due to poor experimental design.
>
>>No, it's down to uncontrollable measurement error when you traffic with
>>the propositional attitudes.
>
>That sure sounds like poor experimental design.
>
>> Look up Davidson's original work in
>>Decision Theory (#1), the work which led *him* to given up Experimental
>>Psychology because of this. I cited it here in the last round so it may
>>still be on Google.
>
>Should I be impressed?
>
>As far as I can tell, there are many philosphers who started as
>scientists. I'm not sure why being a science dropout is supposed to
>qualify one as a philosopher. But it does go a long way toward
>explaining why philosophers so thoroughly misunderstand science.
Then what are YOU doing here?
====================== Quote Begin ======================
"For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal
shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America.
It's just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it."
--- Adolph Bush,
Philadelphia, May 14, 2001
(Thanks to John Brooks.)
====================== Quote End ========================
me...@meow.dom
"Redefining the role of the United States
from enablers to keep the peace
to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers
is going to be an assignment."
--- Adolph Bush,
Interview with the New York Times, Jan. 14, 2001
(Thanks to Rachael Contorer.)
====================== Quote End ========================
In article <c1Hl$lANeDF$Ew...@longley.demon.co.uk>, David Longley
<Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4b4b6093.03071...@posting.google.com>, dan
>michaels <d...@oricomtech.com> writes
>>David Longley <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<5JesgbAs0vE$EwT
>>S...@longley.demon.co.uk>...
>>
[...]
>>... and I am telling you that the limitations inherent in the Brooks'
>>models is the fact that they are NOT adequate representations of
>>truly-intelligent biological systems. So. it's a no-brainer that they
>>have limitations. They don't even attempt to model high-level
>>intelligence. Your strawman has no straw.
>
>Your reasoning is flawed and your understanding limited. He is adopting
>a bottom up approach. he says in the NATURE article that even at the
>level of the simple models he has created something is missing:
>
>"Although they are much more lifelike than the pure engineering
>artefacts of traditional AI, in some sense the systems built under the
>beahviour-based and Alife approaches do not seem as alive as we might
>hope......we are not good at modelling living systems, at small or large
>scales. Something is wrong"
Yes.
EVERYTHING is "wrong".
There is basically NOTHING "right".
It won't work.
I promise.
It will NEVER "work".
It can not POSSIBLY "work".
Because it is UTTERLY dead.
So utterly, it is beyond description.
>R Brooks (2001)
>NATURE 409 pp 409-10
>
>This is someone whose claim to fame is that he plans to build robots
>which are behaviour based. He thinks (as I do):
Delusion.
You can not cut intelligence in mid-stream
and make a carbon copy of it.
Behavior is a RESULT of something.
It is an EXPRESSION of something.
It is not the beginning.
It is, for that purpose, the END.
Once you START at the level of "behavior",
you'll be missing some ROOT issues and aspects.
You'll NEVER figure out WHY it "behaves"
in a way it does,
and if you don't,
how do you know that "behavior"
isn't the deadliest thing there is?
How?
>"The cornerstone of behavior-based robotics is the realization that the
> coupling of perception and action gives rise to all the power of
> intelligence
Not.
>and that cognition is only in the eye of an observer."
So is EVERYTHING.
Even your "objective" "reality",
which is PURE grade fiction.
>he is eschewing 'representations'.
Goubledy gook.
>>I think he's
>>> doing good work. He's building models and saying "something's missing".
>>
>>
>>No, no, no. It's CLEAR what is missing from his models - it's the
>>BRAIN for chrissakes. In fact, his intent was never to include one
>>that performed representation/reasoning/etc - as you would know if you
>>had read his papers which I cited.
>
>No - it's not a brain that's missing (but I'm beginning to wonder if you
>can read objectively Dan..( you seem to be reading Brooks a very
>subjective way).
You must be an equivalent of God then.
How can the subject read something "objectively"?
What is a criteria for "objectivity"?
You have any?
> I'm quite prepared to revise what I understand his
>position to be if you provide me with directly quoted material form a
>number of places which falsify what I assert he is saying above. You are
>not only misreading what Brooks says, you are misreading what I'm
>saying.
Brooks is not God
and so you are not.
You are just a peddler of certain beliefs
you invested heavely in.
What you've got in your hands
is dust and nothing but the dust.
There is no life in it.
That is about all.
Enough.
>You should ask yourself why that is. If it's because you are
>aware of something written elsewhere, please just cite it.
>
>>
>>When he was talking about what was "missing", he jumbled things
>>between his models and real biological models of brain functioning -
>>meaning models that actually include a BRAIN - not simply reflexes.
>>I's so obvious - but you have to read his papers FIRST.
>>================
>>
>
>Am I alone in finding this odd when this is what he actually writes:
>
>"Although they are much more lifelike than the pure engineering
>artefacts of traditional AI, in some sense the systems built under the
>beahviour-based and Alife approaches do not seem as alive as we might
>hope......we are not good at modelling living systems, at small or large
>scales. Something is wrong"
>
>R Brooks (2001)
>NATURE 409 pp 409-10
>
>
>
>>
>>> At the moment I don't know either, but I suspect it's very rudimentary
>>> adaptive behaviours which exist even at the levels of the primary
>>> sensory and motor nuclei (in the spinal cord of vertebrates that's
>>> afferents, efferents and interneurones in the dorsal and ventral horns
>>> of the spinal cord - with interneurones in between. The same in the
>>> cranial nerves except the 'efferents' are different. This is something
>>> that's been bothering me since about 1980 when I was trying to look at
>>> brain mechanisms of reinforcement. It's why I'm so fond of layers -
>>> something I note Brooks is fond of too. ...
>>>
>>
>>If you had read his papers, then you would know there is no memory in
>>his models - so reinforcement doesn't even come into the picture. So,
>>it's not hard to see part of what is missing.
>>============================
>
>I am well aware of what's in HIS models - you aren't listening Dan...
>
>>
>>
>>> The big "problem" is not my concern - I've already said that I think
>>> that GOFAI caches out as good engineering of all sorts. What the
>>> behaviour based robotics work promises as far as I am concerned is a
>>> test bed of models derived form behavioural and neurobehavioural
>>> research into adaptive behaviour/learning. These systems run on
>>> heuristics and make mistakes. If you want really intelligent behaviour
>>> don't look there, look to engineering - this will always advance as a
>>> function of user demand.
>>
>>
>>Wrong again. There is no learning or internal representations in the
>>Brooks' models of subsumption + reactivity. Read the papers for
>>chrissakes. You have no idea what you are talking about. What a waste.
>
>No Dan, you aren't reading what I or others write carefully enough, I
>quite *clearly* have read papers by Brooks - and under circumstances
>like this, I quote to try to avoid this sort of mess. The above
>paragraph has nothing to do with "internal representations". Heuristics
>can be simple reflexes, simple UNCONDITIONED REFLEXES, Fixed Action
>Patterns involving groups of reflexes working as a whole. I also make
>the point above that the presence of INTERNEURONES can and possibly
>does, extend the sophistication of these very simple HARD WIRED
>HEURISTICS.
>
>There are obviously other, much more elaborated innate behaviours,
>reflexive behaviours, both in higher animals and in simple animals where
>more than their basic locomotion systems (or some facet thereof) are
>modelled. What's missing may well be Brook's depth of understanding when
>it comes to neurobiology. Brooks' history is as a mathematician and
>computer scientist.
>
>Put some more care into your reading of what others write - your last
>paragraph alone is another example of your recent Skinner "BFD"
>travesty.
>
>You should re-read BFD as penance <G>.... (TWICE!).
>
====================== Quote Begin ======================
"We ended the rule of one of history's worst tyrants,
and in so doing, we not only freed the American people,
we made our own people more secure."
--- Adolph Bush,
Crawford, Texas, May 3, 2003
====================== Quote End ========================
me...@meow.dom
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
[and hence clamorous to be led to safety] by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
In article <TIx2QAAWYOF$Ew...@longley.demon.co.uk>, David Longley
<Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <bevspp$212g$3...@news.ukr.net>, nucleus <nuc...@in.valid.addr>
>writes
>>In article <MkKxrGA$GyE$Ew...@longley.demon.co.uk>, David Longley
>><Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <bev21b$f86$3...@husk.cso.niu.edu>, Neil W Rickert
>>><ricke...@cs.niu.edu> writes
>>>>David Longley <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>The interest in problems with intensional idioms is really quite
>>>>>mundane. People claim to report observations, often claiming to report
>>>>>what other folk say. But a lot of the time, they don't really do that at
>>>>>all. They *substitute* what they think means the same thing.
>>>>
>>>>That's your mistake.
>>>>
>>>>Your description of what happens with reports is about right. Your
>>>>mistake is to assume that this constitutes a problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's a problem when the task is to count or classify as people disagree
>>>on their classifications.
>>
>>Classification is compartmentalization of life
>>and reduction of it to the MOST mundane level.
>>
>>>The issue becomes one of interpretation and
>>>not observation.
>>
>>Garbage.
>>You are simpli sinking in the ocean of delusion.
>>
>>Do you think there is a universal criteria
>>to validate "observation"?
>>
>>Observation will INEVITABLY be in line with your
>>belief system whatever it might be.
>>
>>So...
>>
>>Is "observation" something "objective"?
>>- Nope.
>>
>>What DOEST it mean to "observe"?
>>- Well, whatever you imply by it.
>>
>>Zo...
>>
>>Garbage.
>>
>
>If I give you a centigrade thermometer a pan of water
>and a heat source and say say:
Why don't you talk to all these fools around here?
You wish to do a mud wrestling match with me?
>"All other things being normal, ie normal atmospheric conditions, and
>normal water, if you heat it, this pan of water will boil when the
>thermometer reads 100 degrees C"
Yes, I know, a "scientific fact",
isn't it?
>you are in fact being asked to make several JOINT OBSERVATIONS. You are
>being asked to check that it is TRUE that:
>The water is heated
>The water boils
>The thermometer reads 100 degrees C
I say: you can make just about and "conclusion"
out of it.
You can even make a conclusion regarding music,
seeing all the bubbles.
>Note, at least ONE pair of OBSERVATION statements is tested. If the
>thermometer reads under 100 degrees C *and* the water boils, the above
>is falsified.
>(All other things being normal, is a "ceteris paribus" clause which
>covers things like the thermometer working and being properly scaled, it
>breing 1 bar pressure, the water being uncontainated etc etc etc).
Yes, scientific delusions in all their grandior.
I can just as well cite you Ohm's law.
And then?
>Each refinement of the statements otherwise makes the theory more
>precise, and easier therefore to falsify.
No idea.
>>As to "interpretation", you are swimming up to your ears
>>in...
>>Well, you know it, don't you?
>>>This is not science but art.
>>Art is not about "interpretation".
>>It is about APPRECIATION.
>>A slightly different thing.
>Whatever, it isn't science.
Well, here is you are caught with your pants down.
I claim Bach is one of the founding father of science.
Before he created his music,
the mankind was basically a band of jypcies,
"primitive" as it gets.
Bach created the structures in music
that were ORDERS of magnitude more complex
than all the "science" of the day.
See ya later, aligator.
------------------------------------------------------------
"It is not Reaganesque to support a tax plan
that is Clinton in nature."
--- Adolph Bush,
Los Angeles, Feb. 23, 2000
me...@meow.dom
they never existed."
--- Golda Meir,
Israeli Prime Minister, June 15, 1969
In article <V+RXdgAVWIF$Ew...@longley.demon.co.uk>, David Longley
<Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <bf1sln$25fu$2...@news.ukr.net>, nucleus <nuc...@in.valid.addr>
>writes
>>
>>So, this "substitutivity of identicals" is what then?
>>- Well, a particular scheme to achieve certain results
>>WITHIN the context of particular world view.
>>
>>Sure, you can "substitute" your money with the house
>>you purchased, even in "real life".
>>But what does it mean?
>>They are "identical"?
Ok, lets shred this one also.
When I have seen it originally,
I was kinda curious how more cunning
can you get. I guesss there is no limit.
Or IS there?
>Oedipus fell in love with Jocasta. He wanted to have sex with Jocasta.
>In reality, Jocasta was Oedipus' mother.
>Did Oedipus want to have sex with his mother?
Are you a pervert?
See the "conclusion" here?
Couldn't you find a "better" example of your
obsene substition but fucking your mother?
You see, in "reality" you can not substitute
a woman with a mother and your very question
at the end is simply indicative of a cunning mind.
Yes, it is guilt loaded concoction.
But ALL it indicates is that YOU are a pervert,
you see.
Where is this sub-idiotic "substitutivity of identicals"
in your obsene example?
What are you trying to show here?
That you are a blood sucker?
Because THAT is the conclusion I come to.
That you are draining energy?
Because THAT is the conclusion I come to.
That you are but a servant of the beast,
craving for attention and you NEVER have enough?
Because that is the conclusion I come to.
>>"Substitutivity of identicals" is one of the
>>most deadly concepts as far as Intelligence goes.
>>Things start loosing their uniqueness
>>and individual color.
Yes. There is just NOTHING you can substitute
because in doing so you kill ALL originality,
ALL uniqueness, ALL intelligence.
What DO you have but a GRAND pile of delusions?
Can you show me the "experimental evidence"
of ANYTHING that works as a result of your
monkey logic?
You wish to manipulate symbology?
Well, that has been shredded.
Years ago.
It does not work.
They tried it for at least generation.
Do not recall seeing any results worth even mentioning.
What else have you got here?
------------------------------------------------------------
[NWO, Skull and Bones, propaganda, brainwash, mind control,
fanatic, deranged, idiot, lunatic, retarded,
religion, God, pro-life, President, freedom]
Q: What makes you believe there is life?
"My pro-life position is I believe there's life.
It's not necessarily based in religion.
I think there's a life there.
Therefore the notion of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness."
--- Adolph Bush,
Quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 23, 2001
me...@meow.dom
New World Order! I talk about it all the time. It's one world
now. The Council [CFR] can find, nurture, and begin to put
people in the kinds of jobs this country needs. And that's
going to be one of the major enterprises of the Council
under me."
--- Leslie Gelb, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) president,
The Charlie Rose Show
May 4, 1993
In article <bf4ebj$1bt$1...@husk.cso.niu.edu>, Neil W Rickert <ricke...@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
>David Longley <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> writes:
>><ricke...@cs.niu.edu> writes
>>>David Longley <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>>>Behaviourism in many respects just comes down to physicalism.
>
>>>It is more like dogmatism.
>
>>Dogma:
>
>>1. [snipped]
>
>>2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion,
>> especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at
>> doctrine.
>
>That's the one.
>
>>I don't think any of the above help here.
>
>You are beyond help :-(
Yes. That much is certain.
>> I have explained, quoted and
>>referenced the sort of behaviourism I am promulgating. I am prepared to
>>listen to anyone who has something to say which makes that position look
>>less useful than another, but I expect what I have cited to be
>>understood first.
You wish to send all these "clueless" on a long road
eating all the piles of garbage you present as
"references"?
And then?
Are you going to be satisfied then?
>>To date, I haven't had an opportunity to learn from
>>anyone in this respect, I have just spent a lot of time correcting
>>misconceptions.
But about ALL you've got is those very misconceptions.
>That's a clear statement. You take your principle as beyond
>question, you won't accept them being questioned. Anybody who
>disagrees is said by you to not understand them.
Yes, that is EXACTLY how masters of delusion operate.
>Science is about questioning, not about indoctrinating.
Not sure there is even a doctrine.
It is all but PURE grade brainwashing procedure,
meant to suck your energy.
That is about ALL there is to it.
------------------------------------------------------------
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes
a revolutionary act."
--- George Orwell
me...@meow.dom
I have made good judgments in the future."
--- Adolph Bush
In article <4b4b6093.0307...@posting.google.com>,
d...@oricomtech.com (dan michaels) wrote:
>David Longley <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<c1Hl$lANeDF$Ew...@longley.demon.co.uk>...
>
>...................
>> >... and I am telling you that the limitations inherent in the Brooks'
>> >models is the fact that they are NOT adequate representations of
>> >truly-intelligent biological systems. So. it's a no-brainer that they
>> >have limitations. They don't even attempt to model high-level
>> >intelligence. Your strawman has no straw.
>>
>> Your reasoning is flawed and your understanding limited. He is adopting
>> a bottom up approach. he says in the NATURE article that even at the
>> level of the simple models he has created something is missing:
>>
>> "Although they are much more lifelike than the pure engineering
>> artefacts of traditional AI, in some sense the systems built under the
>> beahviour-based and Alife approaches do not seem as alive as we might
>> hope......we are not good at modelling living systems, at small or large
>> scales. Something is wrong"
>>
>
>
>Oh man, I have to do all the darn work around here. As I have said
>again and again, the current models are too simplistic. Neuroscience
>doesn't yet know the secrets to how the brain does high-level
>intelligence, etc. That's what's wrong.
>
>I went to the library and checked Rodney's book where he expands upon
>the ideas presented in the jumbled Nature article. He spends 15-20
>pages talking about limitations in current robotics, such as his
>subsumption, AS WELL AS in the ideas of Searle, Penrose, and Chalmer.
>He also says of alife [pg 182, 184]:
>
>"Despite many years of work by Ray and others, and experiments on
>thousands of computers connected over the internet, nothing very much
>more interesting than the first experiments have come along"
That is what Marvin Minsky said here
when he claimed we are still pretty much on the level
we were working on in the fifties of the last century,
the most rudimentary issues of backlash and hysteresis,
and Marvin Minsky isn't quite a fool.
He even attempted to bite the issue of emotional domain.
Yes, it is "right" direction.
The only problem is, it can not be implemented
in a dead mechanical gadget.
I have seen his "model" from his latest book
and could not believe my eyes. It was UTTERLY
insane. He tried to present a model of intelligence
and so he dissected certain things and separated them
on different "levels of processing", which is NOTHING
but PURE concoction, UTTERLY broken in the most
profound sense. Basically, he simply killed
the very potential for intelligence with his
"model". It isn't even laughable.
It is merely pathetic
and represents his blindness.
But at least he tried
and that much I respect him for.
He actually tried.
ALL you are doing here
is engaging in excersize in mental masturbation,
an excersize of self pleasing,
however meaningless and utterly futile it is.
> ... and
>.... "again disappointment set in, and as there has not been
>significant improvements in Sims' work in over 5 years."
About time.
>Then on pg 184 he says:
>
>"There are a few hypotheses we could make about what is lacking in ALL
>our robotic and alife models":
>
>1. ... parameters
Garbage.
>2. ... complexity
>3. ... computer power
>4. ... new stuff
Pure bluff.
>I emphasize "ALL" in the quote above, since Rodney was thinking about
>this, not simply subsumption robots. If all he were thinking of were
>subsumption and alife, then he wouldn't have to spend 20 pages
>explaining items 1-4, which are exactly the same as in the Nature
>article.
>
>Also Rodney talks about many other paradigms that have failed - mostly
>non-biological, BTW:
Anything non biological will not
and can not exhibit intelligence.
Not possible, even in principle.
>.... many new techniques and ideas have arrived, and in many cases
>people have tried to explain living systems using analogues of these
>ideas, but each is deficient in the end:
Yes. ALL.
>telephone switching networks,
>computers, catastrophe theory, chaos theory, dynamical systems, Markov
>random fields, wavelets, GOFAI (good old-fashioned AI), single-cell
>recordings, mass potential recordings, holograms, neural nets, Alife,
>WWW, (generalization of physics) category theory.
Not only "definient". There isn't even a TRACE
of a mother of all mothers, Intelligence, in it.
ALL but conmans excersize in futility.
Again, you don't even have a "goal" to achieve.
You can not even FORMULATE it.
At least those "professional" conmen
received some funding for their deep shit "research".
>IOW, this is what Rodney was actually thinking about, but he didn't
>express it very well in the short jumbled up Nature article. In the
>book, he had 20 some pages to deal with the topic in more detail.
>Now ... going back to the very beginning of this thread ... in fact,
>it's not really #4 new stuff that is missing, so much as #2 complexity
Garbage. It isn't even an issue of complexity.
It is UTTERLY different.
If "complexity" was an issue,
then with all the computers linked via Internet,
you could produce at least a TRACE of Intelligence.
But all they have is but static.
Not even a glimps of Intelligence is detected.
Nothing.
Zero,
zip,
zilch.
They will NEVER "succeed".
>- in that neuroscience doesn't yet have a good handle on how the brain
>actually produces high-level intelligence,
The very definition of "high-level Intelligence"
is PURE lunacy.
> so the current
>biologically-based models aren't complex enuf to describe it
>adequately. This is the shortcoming. #2.
>And even with his simple subsumption models of insects, those had no
>brain and no builtin learning ability, only a few reflexes. Of course,
>they're not gonna emulate insect life very well. No brainer -
>literally.
Just as I said before,
I can just squash that artificial insect,
and it won't even notice.
Try to do this with a cockroach.
Mind you, BLIND cockroach.
Try to catch a microscopic fruit fly.
And that, according to most of you,
is about the "simpliest" intelligence there is.
These AI "professionals" and "experts"
are but conmen feeding on this thing,
deluding all the "clueless" to believe
there is something there.
But about ALL they've got
is but mere hissing sounds of suction.
>Sigh.
------------------------------------------------------------
Herman Goering, president of the Reichstag,
Nazi Party, and Luftwaffe Commander in Chief:
"Naturally the common people don't want war:
Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood.
But, after all, it is the leaders of the country
who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter
to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy,
or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament,
or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to
the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have
to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce
the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."
--- Herman Goering (second in command to Adolf Hitler)
at the Nuremberg Trials
me...@meow.dom
as it is a merge of State and Corporate power."
--- Benito Mussolini, the Father of Fascism.
In article <fL5FQ2A3ZdF$Ew...@longley.demon.co.uk>, David Longley
<Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <bf4epj$2c0a$4...@news.ukr.net>, nucleus <nuc...@in.valid.addr>
>writes
>>In article <bf4ebj$1bt$1...@husk.cso.niu.edu>, Neil W Rickert
>><ricke...@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
>>>David Longley <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>><ricke...@cs.niu.edu> writes
>>>>>David Longley <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>>>>Behaviourism in many respects just comes down to physicalism.
>>>
>>>>>It is more like dogmatism.
>>>
>>>>Dogma:
>>>
>>>>1. [snipped]
>>>
>>>>2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion,
>>>> especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at
>>>> doctrine.
>>>
>>>That's the one.
>>>
>>>>I don't think any of the above help here.
>>>
>>>You are beyond help :-(
>>
>>Yes. That much is certain.
>
>And I hope you understand why.
Why is a slightly different matter.
As to one aspect of it, it is because
you believe in all sorts of fiction,
claiming it to be ultimately valid.
You present some example from Greece
and start analyzing it, trying to twist
and turn, making substitutions where none
are appropriate, and so you make conclusions
that are not there on the first place.
You can not "substitute" a human being
with his name. You can not substitute woman
with mother. Your final question can not be answered
because there are too many holes in the whole story
and that is how you trap your victims.
And yet you make it representative of something.
Yes, it is representative of your manipulative mind.
No question about it.
The conclusion I derived are totally unexpected
in the webs you weave.
They do not even have to do with that story.
They have to do with YOU,
and they are:
1. You are a pervert.
Because you couldn't find a "better" example.
2. You are manipulator.
Because the information is incomplete.
One can not possibly come to any conclusion
beyond being entrapped.
3. You are a guilt manipulator.
Because the final question of your story
is guilt inducing: Do you think he wants
to fuck his mother?
What do you expect to be a response?
Blushing in shame?
4. You are pseudo-scientist.
Because you made some substitutions
that are invalid even within your own framework.
Your "substitution of identicals" delusion
is just that, a delusion.
There is absolutely "identical" in life.
ALL is unique.
I cited you example from fractal approach
as an argument,
but you, being a conman you are,
simply stripped it off from you reply.
What does it mean:
One thing is CERTAIN: 2 + 2 is NEVER 4?
Why did not you answer?
Well, it means there exist no two objects
that are EXACLY the same. It is mere
impossibility and from SEVERAL points of view
and I am not going to chew it for you.
If you are such a scientist as you claim,
it should be pretty much obvious.
In fact, it was known hundreds of years
before the fractal theory was created.
But nobody even noticed it
and continued to do their "substitution
of identicals" number going as far,
as substituting life with money.
Not only life with money,
but GOD with money.
Because this is EXACTLY what is happening
right this very moment in vast majority
of not so folk minds.
I challenged you,
try to crack these couple of equasions:
Money = god
and god = money.
Either I suck your blood
or you WILL suck mine.
There is just no other game in town.
Mind you, the second one is PURE beauty
of "behaviorism".
But you simply cut it out of the post
like it wasn't even there on the first place.
Nope, sire. These ARE my arguments.
Either you argue and have guts to do so
even though the subjects might look "hot"
and show your Intelligence,
or simply get out of my way.
You plug in all these notions that were beaten
to death throughout times and were used many times
over as guiding principles in AI and they ALL failed,
and yet you peddle it all like it was some kind of
utlimate truth.
If ANY of it worked, you'd see some results
with Prolog. But you conviniently cut that out
from your follow up. Because you are simply
a dishonest man.
If you plug this obsene "substitution of identicals"
into an AI system, it will produce the results
not only you, but all may regret.
You keep peddling this pseudo-scientific dogma
refusing to reexamine any of your views.
So you fail to see the light of day.
>>>> I have explained, quoted and
>>>>referenced the sort of behaviourism I am promulgating. I am prepared to
>>>>listen to anyone who has something to say which makes that position look
>>>>less useful than another, but I expect what I have cited to be
>>>>understood first.
>>
>>You wish to send all these "clueless" on a long road
>>eating all the piles of garbage you present as
>>"references"?
>>
>
>The problem is that most folk
Are you a nazi?
Why do you have to insult all these people
doing the "AI research" with this nazi notion
of "folk", of someone "inferior"?
I asked you this question already.
But you, being the coward and conman you are,
simply cut it out from you follow ups.
How many times do you need it to be repeated
before you ear drums, made out of stainless
still of an inch think can hear ANYTHING.
Folk and folk.
Folk this and folk that.
Folk and folk "psychology".
What IS psychology?
Answer this now.
And I said MANY times over
it is but conman's game.
One more time:
You have to accept the very notion of psyche,
the VERY core subject of study,
before you can have a pseudo-science,
you call psychology.
What CAN you possibly "study"
about that, which is the very essense
of a human being? It isn't even study,
but sniffing the contents of the output holes
and looking at them with magnifying glass
and then making "conclusions"
as to what a human being is.
It is PURE disgrace.
These are simply scientific criminals.
It is all but fraud
and not science.
You understand?
Fraud.
Blunt enough?
So what is this "folk psychology", you manifestation
of arrogance and blindness?
You have not psyche, that which you supposedly study
as you refuse the very notion of it,
and then you conviniently glue it
on the top of a bottle,
labelling: Folk psychology.
So you are simply DELUDING people.
Unless psychology recognizes the very notion
of psyche, it is but a criminal enterprise.
That is all there is to it.
So, you cite all these things
as "facts". Then you recombine that crap
and perform the "substitution of identicals"
woodo act and then you make an assertion
of it being ANYTHING even REMOTELY valid.
>talk PAST what is right under their noses.
>They spend too much time with ideas, words, thoughts etc and forget what
>is practically going on.
What IS "practically going on",
at least as AI is concerned?
The whole building is collapsing,
the whole structure is coming down on you
and, as I claim, as a result of your very
"scientific" infrastructure and the underlying
belief system.
The VERY foundation of science
is what?
Well, the axioms.
Can they be proven?
- Nope.
So, how do you know what you are building
on the top of it is ANYTHING but grand system
of delusion?
How?
Yes, you can peddle it in a school,
"corrupting the minds of young",
giving them some delusion
you claim to be reality.
But what IS "going on",
is when you put it all in a working system,
it does not even exhibit an intelligence
of a cockroach or a fruit fly,
whose mass and size is at least 6 orders
of magnitude smaller than yours.
I bet according to all your delusions,
you'll probably claim there isn't even
a trace of intelligence in that fruit fly.
>This is probably because of the amount of time
>these folk spend with words.
Just like you do.
About ALL you've got,
from what I have seen,
is not only words,
but mere hissing sounds
of suction.
You reduce life
to a mental masturbation game,
putting all these labels
on the top of everything that comes your way,
never quite questioning ANY of it
as you are truly blind
and you will pretty much inevitably
will fall into a ditch.
What a beauty of a statement.
THAT is what REAL science is.
The science of LIFE
and not this fiction of death
you are peddling here.
ALL you have is death essentially.
Life is not substitutional.
Anything else?
>>And then?
>>Are you going to be satisfied then?
I know you wont.
You need more
and more
and more
and more.
You shalt NEVER have enough!
At least in the framework YOU placed yourself
with your own hands and deeds.
NEVER.
There is never enough blood
to satisfy the beast,
whose sign is 666.
>If you look closely at who tends to agree and who doesn't you'll find
>that those who are trying to *do* anything will be listening, those who
>just talk, theorise or programme, will argue.
But even those that are "doing it",
simply can produce nothing at the end.
If people of Marvin Minsky caliber make claims
as they do, then...
>They think that what they
>do in intellectual. In reality, the just work with verbal behaviour.
Again. You can reduce virtually anything to anything,
given enough cunningness, stupidity and blindness.
You keep repeating this "behavior" thing.
But when you are presented specific issues
regarding it, you just strip it all
from your replies.
What stands behind "behavior"?
What is its roots?
What is that, which "behaves"?
For what PURPSE it "behaves"?
What is its INTENT?
What is underlying meaning
in all this life experience?
What constitutes YOU as a human being?
And if you do not know,
then how do you know WHY you "behave"
in a way you do
and what are the "conclusions"
to make out of it
that could be applied to other individuals,
whose purpse and intent are not the same as yours,
and they can not possibly be.
And you simply have no clue.
You'll be blabbering and fabricating
ALL sorts of delusions.
But you do not know,
as to know it,
you need to know THAT WHICH IS,
the Truth.
To see the very meaning of life,
the very purpose, the very joy
of creativity and exploration.
I can present you UTTERLY contradictory cases
of "behavior" and they will all be appropriate
considering purpose and intent of those exhibiting it.
Then how can you extract any meaning
or make any conclusion merely looking at behavior
considering that these "behaviorists" go as far,
as utter lunacy when they classify heart beat
as "behavior".
You've been given all these arguments
MANY times over. So many times, it is amazing
to see this Longley bot is still not locked up.
Yes, it is beginning to run in circles,
but is still spitting out all this "scientific"
"wisdom" of delusion most profound.
You simply cut out the arguments that nail your
entire system of delusion down to a piece of wood,
and pretend they do not exist at all.
That indicates your scientific honesty
is on the par with a used car salesman.
Your "folk" arrogance even exceeds the idiocy
of your assertions.
"Behavior based AI" will not work.
It can not possibly work.
Because you are not even looking at
the underlying reasons for that very "behavior",
becase, being the conmen you are,
you know all too well,
you are simply unable to reconcile
those underlying and often contradictory "reasons"
and you will break your teeth
trying to figure out what is purpose and intent.
You can not start developing AI
starting with "behavior".
It is like stating the properties
of that which is inside a coca cola bottle
without even bothering to look at it.
You are simply doomed with this approach.
>>>>To date, I haven't had an opportunity to learn from
>>>>anyone in this respect, I have just spent a lot of time correcting
>>>>misconceptions.
>>But about ALL you've got is those very misconceptions.
Yes.
>>>That's a clear statement. You take your principle as beyond
>>>question, you won't accept them being questioned. Anybody who
>>>disagrees is said by you to not understand them.
>>Yes, that is EXACTLY how masters of delusion operate.
>Well, the fact that the principles work
What "fact"?
They do "work". But ONLY within the context
of their own framework
and that is PURE grade mental masturbation.
It is a game of beads.
Chess also works.
So...
Take it and build AI with it.
Let us see if you can beat the cockroach
with that "big blue".
Lets see if you can catch is microscopic
fruit fly with it.
With all the vast funding you have spent on it,
it can not even say "fart".
But the world caliber chess players
sit and strain their brains
till their eyes pop out
trying to beat it.
But it does not even know it exists,
you old fool.
Just turn the power off
and turn it back on.
About the only thing to happen
is a boot sequence
and, after some time,
a prompt for a command.
What "behavior" are you talking about?
Does "big blue" exhibit behavior?
Do electrons "behave"?
- You MUST admit they do.
Do your SHUES "behave".
- You MUST admit they do,
even when they are sitting under your bed,
doing nothing whatsoever.
Because the very underlying things "behave".
But what do you know about life?
What can you ANSWER with all this "behavior"
goubledy gook?
What can you EXPLAIN and SEE with it?
Just about the only thing you can
is a job of a bean counter,
stating the obvious
and enumerating that
which is already there on the first place.
Do you have a functioning model of ANYTHING,
even remotely related to AI or Intelligence
with all your great theories?
Can I see that?
Just don't send me to read all those piles.
I've done enough reading already.
It simply makes me want to vomit when I look
at most of it. It is simply nauseating.
> - and there's just too much
>concrete evidence to deny that,
>how can it be "delusion"?
Yes, that is how you manipulate and twist.
You claim something to be a "fact".
Then you fabricate some "evidence",
not only that, but CONCRETE "evidence",
then, using your obsene "substitution of identicals",
you ask:
But how could this fact,
based on CONCRETE evidence
be a "delusion"?
Well, but your very statement
is a CONCRETE evidence of a delusion itself,
haven't you noticed?
What is "fact" on the first place?
Do not even bother mental masturbation
about and about and about it.
Fact is that, which you BELIEVE to hold
valid within a certain framework
of BELIEF.
You understand?
BELIEF.
Furthermore, even within the same system
of belief you may have conflicts of those
"facts". Even in mathematics, even though
it is one of the strictest disciplines around.
As to "evidence", at the very best,
you can state ovious and most mundane.
I can see you walking.
Therefore you are "behaving".
So what?
Your "radical behaivourism",
which is "indeed radical",
just as you claim,
pissing against the wind,
includes ALL manifestations
of life in its scope.
Therefore, there is nothing new
in all this. Why don't you simply
call it a pseudo-science
about life?
Oh, you need funding
for your great "research"?
You need to make yourselves "names",
"careers" and achieve prominence,
peddling all this garbage to the
clueless fools
and blabber about how "great" you are
and how grand are your "achievements"?
Then show me a working ANYTHING,
even remotely resembling Intelligence
or even AI, however obsene that thing
is on its own terms.
The best term I have for all this
is pseudo-scientific delusion.
I do not even wish to LOOK at your "evidence".
It is ALL over.
It is literally everywhere you walk or speak.
It is in about every single post of yours.
Yes, you have managed to jam pack your brain
with ALL sorts of information, you call knowledge.
But how come you are such a fool then?
>>>Science is about questioning, not about indoctrinating.
>>Not sure there is even a doctrine.
>>It is all but PURE grade brainwashing procedure,
>>meant to suck your energy.
>>That is about ALL there is to it.
>Brainwashing, teaching, training, changing, modifying, growing,
>expanding, programming, conditioning - choose whatever word you wish.
I said: sucking energy.
Draining it.
Going nowhere.
"Proving" pretty much nothing.
Sending all the fools you can see
to read these piles of delusion.
Sucking them into your web.
You even have guts to follow up on this.
Sure, you strip about the juiciest pieces
out of it, and reduce it all to the level
of a party propaganda of mundane,
substituting truth with lie.
But you do have enough arrogance and
stupidity to jump right into a fire.
It'll burn you like a mosquito,
you fool.
It does not matter to me who is your master,
be it Mr. 666 himself.
You'll simply burn.
Void it is called.
Do you derive satisfaction from this?
------------------------------------------------------------
Rabbi Yaacov Perrin said,
"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail."
(NY Daily News, Feb. 28, 1994, p.6)."
me...@meow.dom
It's that simple."
--- Offense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
In article <bf529s$d0e$1...@husk.cso.niu.edu>, Neil W Rickert <ricke...@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
>David Longley <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>In article <bf4ebj$1bt$1...@husk.cso.niu.edu>, Neil W Rickert
>><ricke...@cs.niu.edu> writes
>
>>>>>It is more like dogmatism.
>
>>>>Dogma:
>
>>>>1. [snipped]
>
>>>>2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion,
>>>> especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at
>>>> doctrine.
>
>>>That's the one.
>
>>So, you object to authoritative principles?
>
>They have no place in science.
Indeed. Criptic and laconic.
A mind of a mathematician at work.
Science is not about "authority".
There is no such a thing as "authoritative principles".
This is not 3rd reich.
It is 4th reich already
just as one book about Illuminati agenda states.
Fresh of the presses.
4th reich is not about "authority".
It is about domination and power of destructiveness.
Better learn new tricks fast.
>> How on earth does one ever
>>learn expertise then Neil?
>
>From study and practice.
I like that.
Neil speaks like a Zen monk nowadays.
Yes. From study and practice
and from allowing oneself certain
freedom [to jump into unknown].
Courage it is called.
And from not being a slave of "authorities"
and their views.
And from appreciation of your very work,
which propells you worward and gives you
impetus and energy for exploration.
Things like that.
I thought you know all this already,
being a behaviorist.
>> Behaviourism requires skills, you need
>>training
You train dogs.
And you train soldiers,
mostly to submit
and UNQUESTIONABLY follow ANY order,
even to kill.
>> to be able to do behaviour analysis just as you need training
>>to do dentistry. It isn't just a matter of words.
>
>Skills are not authoritative principles.
See how Neil cut through your bullshit
and webs you weave
and all these "substitutions of identicals"
you perform?
Simple, ain't it.
Now, what did he do?
What kind of "operation" was that?
Does behaviorism has some explanation of it?
>>>>I don't think any of the above help here.
>
>>>You are beyond help :-(
>
>
>>When it comes to this particular matter, I don't *need* help from you
>>Neil - no offence but you don't seem to have anything to offer. Do you
>>seriously think otherwise?
>
>I surely have nothing to offer you. Or at least nothing you would
>be willing to consider.
>
>>>> I have explained, quoted and
>>>>referenced the sort of behaviourism I am promulgating. I am prepared to
>>>>listen to anyone who has something to say which makes that position look
>>>>less useful than another, but I expect what I have cited to be
>>>>understood first. To date, I haven't had an opportunity to learn from
>>>>anyone in this respect, I have just spent a lot of time correcting
>>>>misconceptions.
>
>>>That's a clear statement. You take your principle as beyond
>>>question, you won't accept them being questioned. Anybody who
>>>disagrees is said by you to not understand them.
>
>That's your problem. You require that somebody first adopt your
>dogmas, before you will consider that they are capable of discussing
>the issues.
>
>That's the way you reinforce your own rigid dogmatism.
>
>>I am quite prepared to learn from other folk who have experience with
>>these principles and skills,
But you already placed a condition on it:
THESE principles and skills.
THIS limited framework.
>>and I know how to recognise those with
>>skills and those without.
If Jesus walks your way,
I doubt you'll recognize him.
THAT is how dire this situation is,
and I am not peddling Jesus here.
I say even if the biggest giant there ever was
walks your way, your mind will be blabbering
about that which you already know
and trying to fit that vast something
into these lil bottles with lables
you already have prepaired.
>>>Science is about questioning, not about indoctrinating.
>
>>Science is not about "questioning" it's about researching. What you seem
>>to be advocating is just arguing! A very substantial part of science is
>>indeed indoctrination!
>
>It's no wonder that you never earned your Ph.D. if that is your idea
>of science.
Donnow about Ph.D. But the very "research"
arises from the question.
Otherwise, there is no research
as if there is no question,
that means you are either God, omni-scient,
or an idiot, with mind closed
to all the awe and wonder around you
and within you.
------------------------------------------------------------
"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for."
--- Thomas Jefferson
nucleus
More and more of our imports come from overseas."
--- Adolph Bush,
Beaverton, Ore., Sep. 25, 2000
In article <4b4b6093.0307...@posting.google.com>,
d...@oricomtech.com (dan michaels) wrote:
>David Longley <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<56fc8vAs5cF$Ew...@longley.demon.co.uk>...
>
>
>
>> #1 Attribution is what folk psychology is all about - the philosophers
>> don't refer to the psychology empirical literature, even though it has
>> clear precedence and is much clearer.
>
>
>Hubert Dreyfus is the preeminent philosopher critic of AI, and here is
>what he says about psychology:
>
>".. it's a bunch of little paradigms, each saying the other one is
>totally hopeless ..."
>
>[deja vu, anyone? ... esp from you, David].
>
>moreover HD goes on: "... it's just a bunch of fads. It doesn't seem
>to get anywhere. There's been no progress in understanding the mind
>....".
>
>This is the #1 crux of the limitation of biological models of mind.
>===============
>
>
>Fodor would have known of it
>> though as he published in journals which also published such work!
>> One can be a realist (Fodor), instrumentalist (Dennett) or an
>> eliminativist (Churchland) when it comes to objects of propositional
>> attitude. The realists believe representations play a real role in the
>> control of behaviour. Fodor has done a review of all of these
>> alternatives, so has Dennett (references given elsewhere).
>
>
>Fodor has been one of the pre-eminent advocates of modularity of brain
>function, for 30 years or so .... specifically he says: "... the mind
>is not an all-purpose learning device but is divided into modules
>dedicated to specific tasks".
[Falling on his face
right into the mud of his own delusions]
May be he can show where these lil boxes
in the MIND, mind you, not brain,
are located and how are they interconnected.
Fodor is a fool,
trying to describe that
which is beyond description.
>However, Fodor also sees the limitations of this: "... dividing the
>mind into many little dedicated computers, or modules, still leaves
>unanswered the question of how the results of all of these modular
>computations become integrated ...
Oh, finally.
Yes.
And according to what principle, criteria,
and purpose.
Furthermore, to devide mind, not just brain,
into parcels is but utter idiocy.
> a psychology that hasn't faced the
>integration problem has barely got off the ground ...
>This is the #2 crux of the limitation of biological models of mind.
>All of the current models are deficient because they are vastly too
>simplistic, and the major reason for this is because we don;t know
>enough about how real brains perform their tasks, beyond a few bits
>and pieces.
Because you refuse to look at the very core issues.
You are stuck on the level of implementation
not even bothering to ask the core questions:
What is it for?
What are we trying to achieve?
What is Intelligence?
What is intent?
List goes on.
So you can not possibly implement that,
which you do not know the purpose of.
So far, only the MOST primitive immitations
of the real thing have been tried
and in the MOST distorted and limited manner.
------------------------------------------------------------
nucleus
She'll make a fine labor secretary.
From what I've read in the press accounts,
she's perfectly qualified."
--- Adolph Bush,
Austin, Texas, Jan. 8, 2001
In article <HqxTYAAWMsF$Ew...@longley.demon.co.uk>, David Longley
<Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4b4b6093.0307...@posting.google.com>, dan
>michaels <d...@oricomtech.com> writes
>>David Longley <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<56fc8vAs5cF$EwI
>>I...@longley.demon.co.uk>...
>>
>>
>>
>>> #1 Attribution is what folk psychology is all about - the philosophers
>>> don't refer to the psychology empirical literature, even though it has
>>> clear precedence and is much clearer.
>>
>>
>>Hubert Dreyfus is the preeminent philosopher critic of AI, and here is
>>what he says about psychology:
>>
>>".. it's a bunch of little paradigms, each saying the other one is
>>totally hopeless ..."
>>
>>[deja vu, anyone? ... esp from you, David].
>
>I understand why someone would say that and it *can* look like that. I
>think it takes some years for it to be properly understood. I was told
>that as an undergraduate and I certainly found it to be true later. What
>enables that to happen is study and research. As an undergraduate it is
>very difficult to see how one field of work relates to another, or is at
>odds with another. What I have put together in "Frag.htm" is just such
>an overview. I have no idea how it might appear to someone who knows
>nothing about psychology.
Psychology is fraud.
Enough.
>Anyway, take it as a hypothesis if you like: in social psychology,
>personality and cognitive psychology there is a dominant paradigm which
>runs through most of the research. What it's been called may vary over
>time (in the 50s it was "Cognitive Dissonance") but Attribution Theory
>is another way of thinking about conditioning. It's also a way of
>thinking about heuristics.
>
>>
>>moreover HD goes on: "... it's just a bunch of fads. It doesn't seem
>>to get anywhere. There's been no progress in understanding the mind
>>...".
>>
>Maybe not the mind - but the set of heuristics used by people as a
>theory of mind. It certainly very useful for an understanding of
>behaviour.
>
>A lot of psychologists will not spend time arguing a defence of what
>they do. Some may think this a mistake - see the Skinner answer to four
>questions - or don't - it's up to you.
>
>
>>This is the #1 crux of the limitation of biological models of mind.
>>===============
>>
>>
>>Fodor would have known of it
>>> though as he published in journals which also published such work!
>>> One can be a realist (Fodor), instrumentalist (Dennett) or an
>>> eliminativist (Churchland) when it comes to objects of propositional
>>> attitude. The realists believe representations play a real role in the
>>> control of behaviour. Fodor has done a review of all of these
>>> alternatives, so has Dennett (references given elsewhere).
>>
>>
>>Fodor has been one of the pre-eminent advocates of modularity of brain
>>function, for 30 years or so .... specifically he says: "... the mind
>>is not an all-purpose learning device but is divided into modules
>>dedicated to specific tasks".
>>
>>However, Fodor also sees the limitations of this: "... dividing the
>>mind into many little dedicated computers, or modules, still leaves
>>unanswered the question of how the results of all of these modular
>>computations become integrated ... a psychology that hasn't faced the
>>integration problem has barely got off the ground ...
>>
>>This is the #2 crux of the limitation of biological models of mind.
>>
>>All of the current models are deficient because they are vastly too
>>simplistic, and the major reason for this is because we don;t know
>>enough about how real brains perform their tasks, beyond a few bits
>>and pieces.
>
>Well, I guess we're just have to disagree.
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez insisted there was "stability and
security across great parts of this country." He dismissed what he called "a strategically and operationally
insignificant surge of attacks."
nucleus
that my brother Jeb is concerned about the hemisphere as well."
--- Adolph Bush,
Miami, Fla., June 4, 2001
In article <fa69ae35.03071...@posting.google.com>,
er...@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural exa) wrote:
>d...@oricomtech.com (dan michaels) wrote in message
> news:<4b4b6093.03071...@posting.google.com>...
>> er...@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural exa) wrote in message
> news:<fa69ae35.03071...@posting.google.com>...
>> > BTW, you are *of* *course* correct about the importance of complexity
>> > and scalability of any model of intelligence. If it can't get as
>> > complex and big as a human mind, it cannot hope to be intelligent.
>> > It's a necessary (but not sufficient) condition.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, exactly. It's esp true when you have a model, such as
>> behavior-based / subsumption robotics, which does not even "attempt"
>> to model the brain, but only a few low-level reflexes. It's a spinal
>> cord, it's not a brain.
>>
>
>I don't know if my spinal cord is able to achieve the kind of things
>like insect like walking. Probably not. Still, the reflexive (not
>reflective :) models are things that evolution discovered a few
>billion years ago.
"Evolution" is not entity.
Only entities can discover.
>We are interested in more recent developments :) So
>your analogy will hold to a great extent.
>
>Thanks,
>
>__
>Eray Ozkural
------------------------------------------------------------
"One drop of blood of a Jew is worth that of a thousand
Gentiles." Yitzhak Shamir, a former Prime Minister of Israel
nucleus
is a good listener, and he's a pretty good actor, too."
--- Adolph Bush
In article <Y7CEsAAbTtF$Ew...@longley.demon.co.uk>, David Longley
<Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4b4b6093.03071...@posting.google.com>, dan
>michaels <d...@oricomtech.com> writes
>>er...@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural exa) wrote in message
> news:<fa69ae35.0307170
>>244.58...@posting.google.com>...
>>> Neil W Rickert <ricke...@cs.niu.edu> wrote in message
> news:<bf41ku$n56$2@hus
>>k.cso.niu.edu>...
>>> > Of course if behaviorists really did know all the answers, that would
>>> > be a different matter. But if they had all the answers, they would
>>> > be building AI systems right now -- even if only so that they could
>>> > claim the Loebner prize.
>>>
>>> What did behaviorists build? How intelligent were the machines that
>>> they built? That's the crucial question showing how unfounded the
>>> claims of David and Glen are.
>>>
>>> Now of course we will hear them claiming some reactive stupid robot
>>> was truly intelligent (having misunderstood what subsumption
>>> architecture is) and chess playing programs were not.
>>>
>>> Ah, but say such a thing and I will shoot your weak argument down very
>>> rapidly David.
>>
>>
>>David is totally confused about what is going on here.
>
>Translation: Dan Michaels (who does not understand what Behaviour
>Analysis is)
"Behavior analysis" is idiocy
of starting something in the middle
and hoping to get somewhere as a result.
"Behavior" is that which is kinda "final result".
Just observing the car moving on the street,
you can not possibly understand the motivation,
intent and purpose of the driver.
"Behaviorism" is pretty much the same as
"psychology", a conconcion invented by idiots
and assorted conmen.
Enough.
>thinks that "David is totally confused about what is going
>on here".
>
>Why does Dan think this?
>> Because he is a
>>behaviorist, and the subsumption guys rechristened their field
>>behavior-based robotics, he seems to think they are all talking about
>>the same thing.
>
>What might that be Dan?
>
>
>Aha.....
>
>> He doesn't seem to realize that you cannot condition a
>>reactive robot, no matter how hard you try. It doesn't have any memory
>>to remember its conditioning with.
>
>What makes you think behaviourists only deal with conditioned behaviour?
>Tell me, how does sensitization and habituation relate to conditioning?
>Well does a psychologist mean by non-associative responses?
>
>
>
>> OTOH, it might be great fun to
>>watch D+G trying to impress their latest theories upon such a robot -
>>and then writing up papers about ... "Paradoxical Failure of Operant
>>Conditioning to Produce Results in a Behavior-Based Robotic Insect".
>>;-)
>
>Read by *ANYBODY* who knows *ANYTHING* about leaning theory or the
>experimental analysis of behaviour, even anyone who had read the
>material I've referenced by Grau and others (some of which was actually
>posted here with the authors' permission) the above would be dismissed
>as the half baked ideas of someone still in High School. Dan, I am
>afraid Glen was right to patronize you as Little Danny - you are way out
>of line and you are writing absolute nonsense. Go and do some basic
>reading and come back and apologise.
>
>You are factually wrong - it's as simple as that.
------------------------------------------------------------
Librarian
level a paranoiac view of the world. Summarized in a phrase repeatedly
used at the highest level,
"he who is not with us is against us."
I strongly suspect the person who uses that phrase doesn't know its
historical or intellectual origins.
It is a phrase popularized by Lenin (Applause)
when he attacked the social democrats on the grounds that they were
anti-Bolshevik and therefore he who is not with us is against us
and can be handled accordingly."
--- Zbigniew Brzezinski
In article <kZNrUXAhqvE$Ew...@longley.demon.co.uk>, David Longley
<Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <beuq24$1v5p$2...@news.ukr.net>, nucleus <nuc...@in.valid.addr>
>writes
>>In article <MpKdnfIR3ov...@metrocast.net>, "Bill Modlin"
>><mod...@metrocast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>The problems with intensional idiom and fragmented behavior are indeed
>>>philosophically interesting, but for purposes of a summary at the level I
>>>intended they are subsumed in the depiction of clinical judgment and human
>>>intelligence as less reliable than extensional predictive procedures, in
>>>situations to which those extensional procedures can indeed be brought to
>>>bear.
>>
>>Yes. You both seem to be from the same camp.
>>Load it up with as many notions as it gets
>>and that will make you look "smart", right?
>
>It may appear that way, but no.
>
>The interest in problems with intensional idioms is really quite
>mundane.
Intensional idioms.
Smart sounding something.
> People claim to report observations, often claiming to report
>what other folk say.
Why are you so obsessed with "folk"?
What do "folks" have to do with ANY of this?
Is it but your arrogance of "holier than thou"?
Are YOU a folk?
> But a lot of the time, they don't really do that at
>all. They *substitute* what they think means the same thing. There's
>lots of research on this ("The serial reproduction phenomenon" aka
>Chinese Whispers.
There is LOTS of "research" on just about anything
you can think of. Is is then, somehow, magically
some kind of evidence of its validity?
It is but the same thing as I claim
"there is ALL sorts of garbage out there".
> But it seems to happen with a certain class of words
>more than others - and these our the psychological verbs of
>propositional attitude.
Mindwashing class again?
What is "psychological verbs"?
What DOES it signify?
What is "propositional attidude"?
Where did you pull it out from?
>When you examine how these words are used - we use them in a different
>way to the way we use the language of science.
There aint such a thing as "language of science".
What IS that "language of science"?
What it consists of?
> The latter conforms to
>the rules of extensionality (e.g. 1+3 = 2+2),
Well, according to fractal view,
you are simply hallucinating.
One thing is certain 2+2 is NEVER 4.
Extensionality?
What is that?
> and certain constraints on
>serial order which requires the use of a place holder (quantifier) - but
>the intensional idioms of folk psychology do not.
Just as I said MANY times over.
Yout hide behind as many complicated sounding notions
as you can manage in one sentence,
hoping to LOOK "smart".
But it is all but PURE grade garbage.
Try to beat this:
Money = god
and god = money.
Either I suck your blood,
or you WILL suck mine,
there is just no other game in town.
Just try.
See what is left of you.
> In some respects you
>can see "behaviourism" as a decision not to use these irregular folk
>psychological terms IN SCIENCE.
"Behaviorism" is a big lie.
It implies that by analyzing "behavior",
which is about ANY manifestation of life
you can imagine,
you get somewhere.
But, being the conman's "science",
it does realize it is but obsenity.
So, it has to include a heart beat
and breath in "behavior".
The only problem is that once it does it,
it becomes utterly meaningless.
You can just as well claim that farting
is "behavior", and appropriately so.
But...
Once you do that, you are lost
in the jungle of confusion.
Is silence behavior?
- Yes.
Is contemplation behavior?
- Yes.
Is DEATH behavior?
- Well, actually Yes.
THAT is where you are.
> What the material in Frag.htm tries to
>do is show why this is a good idea.
In order to see how "good" this idea is,
you'd better define the very notion of "good",
which is a byproduct of a religious belief,
mind you.
Can you do that?
What IS "good"?
>>>Briefly: human concepts and beliefs are generally not well-formed objects
Lunacy.
>>"Not well formed objects"?
>>What have you had for breakfast today?
>>Zome heroine?
>This is not technical talk - it's a stab at saying what need to be said
>in non-technical terms.
What is "objects"?
What is "well formed" objects?
Are you but hallucinating?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Any lie, repeated long enough,
eventually becomes truth".
--- Adolph Hitler,
who was financed by the blood line
of DISGUSTING degenerates of Bush family.
Librarian
propaganda, brainwashing, mind control, deception, Illuminati, NWO]
We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times,
Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors
have attended our meetings and respected their promises of
discretion for almost forty years.
It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for
the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of
publicity during these years.
--- Brother David Rockefeller,
Freemason, Skull and Bones member
C.F.R. and Trilateral Commission Founder
In article <MkKxrGA$GyE$Ew...@longley.demon.co.uk>, David Longley
<Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <bev21b$f86$3...@husk.cso.niu.edu>, Neil W Rickert
><ricke...@cs.niu.edu> writes
>>David Longley <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>>The interest in problems with intensional idioms is really quite
>>>mundane. People claim to report observations, often claiming to report
>>>what other folk say. But a lot of the time, they don't really do that at
>>>all. They *substitute* what they think means the same thing.
>>
>>That's your mistake.
>>
>>Your description of what happens with reports is about right. Your
>>mistake is to assume that this constitutes a problem.
>>
>
>It's a problem when the task is to count or classify as people disagree
>on their classifications.
Classification is compartmentalization of life
and reduction of it to the MOST mundane level.
>The issue becomes one of interpretation and
>not observation.
Garbage.
You are simpli sinking in the ocean of delusion.
Do you think there is a universal criteria
to validate "observation"?
Observation will INEVITABLY be in line with your
belief system whatever it might be.
So...
Is "observation" something "objective"?
- Nope.
What DOEST it mean to "observe"?
- Well, whatever you imply by it.
Zo...
Garbage.
As to "interpretation", you are swimming up to your ears
in...
Well, you know it, don't you?
>This is not science but art.
Art is not about "interpretation".
It is about APPRECIATION.
A slightly different thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."
--- Adolph Bush
Librarian
--- Adolph Bush,
Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002
In article <35fae540.03071...@posting.google.com>,
L.F...@lycos.co.uk (Acme Debugging) wrote:
>"Bill Modlin" <mod...@metrocast.net> wrote in message
> news:<MpKdnfIR3ov...@metrocast.net>...
>>
><snip comments on prior posts>
>
>>> The problems with intensional idiom and fragmented behavior are
>indeed
>>> philosophically interesting,
As long, as you are willing to be a conman.
>>> but for purposes of a summary at the
>level I
>>> intended they are subsumed in the depiction of clinical judgment
>and human
>>> intelligence
Goubledy gook.
>>> as less reliable than extensional predictive
>procedures,
Pile of garbage.
>>> in
>>> situations to which those extensional procedures can indeed be
>brought to
>>> bear.
You wish to SOUND "smart",
making all these hissing sounds,
utterly devoid of any meaning?
>And what decides which situations are those where they cannot be
>brought to bear? Are there any general rules?
Enough.
This is simply sick.
>>> Briefly: human concepts and beliefs are generally not well-formed
>objects
>>> subject to rigorous logical manipulation.
>
>I do it all the time and it works. And not only in my head but with
>people who are more invested more in the process than the result of
>the argument. I think the reconciliation is in your definition of
>concepts and beliefs.
>
>>> It is easy to demonstrate
>>> irreconcilable contradictions which may arise when one attempts to
>reason
>>> about such entities. It is possible to believe that A is better
>than B, B
>>> is better than C, and at the same time that C is better than A.
>It is
>>> possible to believe that A implies B and B implies C while
>rejecting the
>>> idea that A implies C. The "A"s and "B"s of naive human thought
>are often
>
>Maybe the median reasoner in David's aggregate has this problem, my
>human models of reasoning do not have this problem. They know that in
>real life all the marbles are not the same, whether or not they know
>"transitivity" or whatever.
>
><snip about mental symbols>
>>>
>>> We can certainly study them: we could investigate the extensional
>>> circumstances which might lead to the reporting of contradictory
>beliefs,
>>> for example. But if our intent is to predict or control some
>objective
>>> behavior we are better off looking for objectively determinate
>relationships
>>> among observable variables, and dispensing with all reference to
>mediating
>>> attitudes and beliefs.
>
>In the aggregate, sometimes one can predict the aggregate, sometimes
>not. Predicting one individual's behavior can be done sometimes,
>sometimes not. It doesn't say too much. It seems to me the operative
>question is generalizing rules to decide what will be predictive and
>what will not.
>>>
>>> Much of the above is inarguable. But I feel David is far too
>extreme in
>>> his utter rejection of the mental. I would point out that while
>
>Dave doesn't acknowledge that sometimes the statistics works, and
>sometimes it doesn't. At least I haven't seen him acknowledge it. But
>it doesn't bother me in the context of this group because what is
>important is how applicable these measurements are to AI, more
>specifically brain emulation (which I don't think is your primary
>interest), and most specifically to the reward/punishment
>stimulus/response model, like what Curt is doing.
>
>I don't think any theory of AI has to satisfy every last contrived
>case someone can dream up. It's a pain in the ass that whenever you
>are writing innovative software, and as soon as people start thinking
>you might possibly succeed, then come the contrived contrary cases.
>Programmers learn to ignore that. In the end, those contrived cases
>usually don't add up to much. If they do, ok, so you didn't solve the
>riddles of the universe, and maybe you didn't "solve the AI problem"
>(which can't be defined anyway), but you improved something, maybe a
>lot.
>
>>> predictions based on reported mental states may be unreliable, such
>reports
>>> are not entirely without predictive power, and in a wide variety of
>>> circumstance they are all we have to go on.
>
>A big justification for use in the prison system, also some employment
>testing, is that there is a problem with unobjectivity of those in
>authority, and that assumes aggregate testing. One doesn't always get
>the best informed wisdom in every position of responsibility.
>
>>> database of objective observations relevant to our decisions. If
>a
>>> business acquaintance tells me he likes opera and I wish to curry
>favor with
>>> him, it is quite reasonable to take his report at face value and
>offer him
>>> tickets. If David's vehement rhetoric were taken literally, he
>would have
>>> me ignore the report entirely since it involves nothing but a folk
>>> psychological notion of an attitude.
>
>Yeah, I suppose it can get silly.
>>>
>>> None of the really above touches on the disagreement that I have
>with
>>> David's position.
>>>
>>> David sees little value in attempting to build a "thinking machine"
>that
>>> recreates the fallible heuristics of naive human thought, which
>lead to
>>> inconsistent and illogical mental models. He would have us
>concentrate
>>> entirely on logical and mathematical extensions to our abilities,
>building
>>> machines that use extensional logic to improve on our thinking
>rather than
>>> duplicate it.
>
>That make a lot of sense. Nobody has explained to me why, already
>having 6 billion humans, we need 6 billion and one, other than the
>challenge of doing it. We will necessarily create super humans first
>anyway, assuming the species lasts that long. So the human will be a
>curiosity, like recreating a '57 Chevy. Perhaps I exaggerate slightly.
><g>
>>>
>>> I claim that those "fallible heuristics" are required to deal with
>a complex
>>> world in which most information is not packaged neatly into
>meaningful
>>> categories and isolated variables suited to extensional analysis.
>Their
>
>There is more to human intelligence than multiple regression. But a
>lot of creative, new, original reasoning is probability, which
>multiple regression is, maybe most. Like what a detective does.
>Factoring out those things that we have learned to do automatically.
>
>>> use allows us to avoid the combinatorial explosion which renders
>rigidly
>>> logical analysis impotent in all but the simplest of circumstance.
> It is
>>> because we use heuristics to group and relate things in the absence
>of
>>> rigorous evidence
>
>I don't think heuristics are based on evidence as much as they are
>based on defeating the combinatorial explosion. Evidence is one thing.
>I can think of others. I think of heuristics in this context as simply
>those subconscious processes that affect our reasoning, except for
>brute force logic/probability itself.
>
>>> that we can make a decision without an infinite regress
>>> into analysis of things that we cannot logically exclude from
>relevance.
>>> It is because we use these heuristics that we are intelligent.
>
>It seems necessary, but not sufficient. Depends on the definition of
>intelligence.
>>>
>>> Extensional methods are not intelligence, they are a
>special-purpose tool
>>> which our intelligence has invented to extend the precision of our
>judgment
>>> in particular circumstances.
>
>That says it pretty well in a nutshell.
>>>
>>> I expect David to disagree. We've had this argument before.
>
>I've offered the argument, David declined. But that doesn't mean
>anything at all.
>
>>> But perhaps at
>>> least this time we can get a little closer to understanding just
>what it is
>>> we are arguing about.
>
>I've been patiently waiting. There's no hurry. And I don't need an
>argument to tell me that statistical prediction applied to humans
>sometimes doesn't work. All I need is one example from experience. I
>have more than one. I also know examples where it works marvellously.
>
>Part of the argument will be resolved due to the nature of aggregate
>testing v. individual. AI researchers are generally emulating their
>own brains, where David has been applying statistics to aggregates.
>I've had the pleasure of serving the public, so have an idea of what
>that is. In my own case, I am trying to use the most successful
>reasoners I know, not myself, so that I would be comparing the best
>informed wisdom against David's aggregates. If his aggregates are
>skewed towards prison inmates, students, or clincial psychology, then
>I would say the
>gap is wider still.
>
>>> We aren't arguing about the fallibility of
>>> heuristics, that's a given.
>
>That fallability is most interesting to me, i.e. objectivity.
>
>>> We aren't arguing about mentalistic constructs
>>> per se, since I don't require that my AI have attitudes or
>feelings. Though
>>> I suspect such things will emerge, they play no part in the
>description of
>>> the heuristic mechanisms we need.
>
>Sounds like an AI reasoner to me. Probably not just that.
>>>
>>> I want a system that can implement the same sort of heuristics that
>our
>>> brain uses to come up with a useful model of the world as it is
>reported by
>>> its senses. I'm not certain, but I think David will argue that
>there is
>>> nothing my heuristics can do that would not be done better with
>extensional
>>> models. Let the battle begin. :-)
>
>Call it what you want. I call it "psychology v. informed wisdom" to
>admit a wider range of points-of-view and experience.
>
>Larry
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I haven't had a chance to talk, but I'm confident we'll get a bill
that I can live with if we don't."
--- Adolph Bush,
Referring to the McCain-Kennedy patients' bill of rights,
Brussels, Belgium, June 13, 2001