Kook Index
David B. Held
"kookability" of some of the more regular posters here.
Low means "not kook" and high means "very kook". Here's
a tenative list with my votes (in the order in which I happen
to remember the names):
David Longley: 6
Glen Sizemore: 3
Curt Welch: 3
patty: 1
Eray Ozkural: 1
Ken Collins: 8
Arthur T. Murray: 10
Lester Zick: 4
David Held: ? (go ahead and give me a 10 if you like ;)
Neil Rickert: 1.5 (for not buying into Fredkinism ;> )
These are just people whose posts I've actually read now
and then, which is why I don't include other posters that are
obviously prolific. Feel free to add names if you have an
opinion.
Dave
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.656 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 4/10/2004
qw6
Yet this NG is still the dullest I've seen. 0 less kooks in this NG
as I am leaving.
George Bush
JPL Verhey
My subjective, totally untestable and unjustified intensional scorelist,
based on posts that made most sense to me, sound sensible or provoked more
interest in a subject:
David Longleg: 4
Darth Sizemore: 8
Curt Welch: 6
patty: 2
Eray Ozkural: 2
Ken Collins: 5 (a pitty he doesn't have it-all on some website??)
Arthur T. Murray: dunno
Lester Zick: 1
David Held: 2
Neil Rickert: dunno
qw6: 1,5
"David B. Held" <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:c6fjt7$r3d$1...@news.astound.net...
ken
news:c6fjt7$r3d$1...@news.astound.net...
> "kookability" of some of the more regular posters here.
> Low means "not kook" and high means "very kook". Here's
> a tenative list with my votes (in the order in which I happen
> to remember the names):
>
> David Longley: 6
> Glen Sizemore: 3
> Curt Welch: 3
> patty: 1
> Eray Ozkural: 1
> Ken Collins: 8
> Arthur T. Murray: 10
> Lester Zick: 4
> David Held: ? (go ahead and give me a 10 if you like ;)
> Neil Rickert: 1.5 (for not buying into Fredkinism ;> )
>
> These are just people whose posts I've actually read now
> and then, which is why I don't include other posters that are
> obviously prolific. Feel free to add names if you have an
> opinion.
'sorry' -- no 'fish', here.
k. p. collins
John H.
penultimate freak, just ask my friends. I take offence at not recording a
level on your kookometer. Unacceptable conduct on your part, you are now my
arch enemy, I shall hunt you down and machete you to death for excluding me
from such a prestigious list. Give me a rating or I'll hunt you down like a
wild dog.
John H.
"David B. Held" <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:c6fjt7$r3d$1...@news.astound.net...
Neil W Rickert
>Just for fun, I thought we could vote on "kook credibility" or
>"kookability" of some of the more regular posters here.
>Low means "not kook" and high means "very kook". Here's
>a tenative list with my votes (in the order in which I happen
>to remember the names):
>David Longley: 6
>Glen Sizemore: 3
>Curt Welch: 3
>patty: 1
>Eray Ozkural: 1
>Ken Collins: 8
>Arthur T. Murray: 10
>Lester Zick: 4
>David Held: ? (go ahead and give me a 10 if you like ;)
>Neil Rickert: 1.5 (for not buying into Fredkinism ;> )
Your score for Longley is way too low.
Your score for Arthur is too high. At least he is able to laugh at
himself now and then. Sizemore's score should be higher than that of
Zick. Hmm, Ken's score should also be higher than Zick's.
ken
news:c6gi4m$h6b$1...@usenet.cso.niu.edu...
It's 'hilarious' - my 'score' is higher than Zick's :-]
Give me "1000".
It'll make no difference with respect to what I
post, nor with respect to the fact that there's
been only one forced-correction to anything
that I've posted, and that only because I act-
ually wasn't discussing what was corrected.
So, if I'm a "kook", then what does such
absence of correction say about everyone
else? :-])
ken
Lester Zick
<dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Just for fun, I thought we could vote on "kook credibility" or
>"kookability" of some of the more regular posters here.
>Low means "not kook" and high means "very kook". Here's
>a tenative list with my votes (in the order in which I happen
>to remember the names):
>
>David Longley: 6
>Glen Sizemore: 3
>Curt Welch: 3
>patty: 1
>Eray Ozkural: 1
>Ken Collins: 8
>Arthur T. Murray: 10
>Lester Zick: 4
>David Held: ? (go ahead and give me a 10 if you like ;)
>Neil Rickert: 1.5 (for not buying into Fredkinism ;> )
>
>These are just people whose posts I've actually read now
>and then, which is why I don't include other posters that are
>obviously prolific. Feel free to add names if you have an
>opinion.
>
Ah. The one true universal antikook pronounces judgment. The problem
is that we're all kooks. Some of us have just made greater progress
remediating the kookiness.
Regards - Lester
Lester Zick
<p...@nospamwhatsoever.nu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
> Thank God you left me out ;)
>
>My subjective, totally untestable and unjustified intensional scorelist,
>based on posts that made most sense to me, sound sensible or provoked more
>interest in a subject:
>
> David Longleg: 4
> Darth Sizemore: 8
> Curt Welch: 6
> patty: 2
> Eray Ozkural: 2
> Ken Collins: 5 (a pitty he doesn't have it-all on some website??)
> Arthur T. Murray: dunno
> Lester Zick: 1
> David Held: 2
> Neil Rickert: dunno
> qw6: 1,5
Certainly makes sense to me.
Regards - Lester
Lester Zick
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Oh come on David, this is insulting, how come I'm not on the list? I am the
>penultimate freak, just ask my friends. I take offence at not recording a
>level on your kookometer. Unacceptable conduct on your part, you are now my
>arch enemy, I shall hunt you down and machete you to death for excluding me
>from such a prestigious list. Give me a rating or I'll hunt you down like a
>wild dog.
>
>
>
>John H.
I wondered the same. You probably just need more at bats.
Regards - Lester
Curt Welch
> Just for fun, I thought we could vote on "kook credibility" or
> "kookability" of some of the more regular posters here.
> Low means "not kook" and high means "very kook". Here's
> a tenative list with my votes (in the order in which I happen
> to remember the names):
>
> David Longley: 6
> Glen Sizemore: 3
> Curt Welch: 3
I'd give this idiot at least a 5!
--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
cu...@kcwc.com Webmaster for http://NewsReader.Com/
David B. Held
news:408b9243$0$41759$5fc...@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl...
> [...]
> My subjective, totally untestable and unjustified intensional
> scorelist, based on posts that made most sense to me, sound
> sensible or provoked more interest in a subject:
Hey, we only want exacting logically-derived scientific
judgements here. There's no room for waffling or fudging on
this list!
> David Longleg: 4
> Darth Sizemore: 8
> Curt Welch: 6
> patty: 2
> Eray Ozkural: 2
> Ken Collins: 5 (a pitty he doesn't have it-all on some website??)
> Arthur T. Murray: dunno
> Lester Zick: 1
> David Held: 2
> Neil Rickert: dunno
> qw6: 1,5
Hahaha! qw6 isn't a kook, he's a troll. That's why I added him
to my killfile (well, OE doesn't exactly have a "killfile", but close
enuf). Anyway, the fact that you give Lester Zick a 1 tells me
that either A) your score must match Lester's, or B) you *are*
Lester! Anyway, Curt is flaky, but I wouldn't say he's gone into
full-blown kookdom yet. He's just a bit over-enthusiastic. At
least he can still laugh at himself. The way Longley takes himself
so seriously, on the other hand, demands a higher score, if you
ask me.
My guess is that you give Glen a high score because you lock
horns with him a lot. But I don't think that justifies a high kook
score. I disagree with Rickert on a lot of stuff, but I wouldn't
call him a kook. Since I gave Lester a 4, that implies I should
give you a 4 as well, but your posts don't seem that far out in
left field. I'd have to give you a 2, probably.
Dave
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.668 / Virus Database: 430 - Release Date: 4/24/2004
David B. Held
news:408b...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Oh come on David, this is insulting, how come I'm not on the list?
I haven't read many of your posts. My kookmeter registered
"insufficient sample". Anyway, you should join the fun and
cast your votes. Maybe an average of everyone's votes will
say something interesting about the group.
Dave
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
David B. Held
> >David Longley: 6
> >Glen Sizemore: 3
> >Curt Welch: 3
> >patty: 1
> >Eray Ozkural: 1
> >Ken Collins: 8
> >Arthur T. Murray: 10
> >Lester Zick: 4
> >David Held: ? (go ahead and give me a 10 if you like ;)
> >Neil Rickert: 1.5 (for not buying into Fredkinism ;> )
>
> Your score for Longley is way too low.
I think Longley is more of a parrot than a kook, but that might
be splitting hairs.
> Your score for Arthur is too high. At least he is able to laugh
> at himself now and then.
Yet at other times, he can be very bombastic, and in an oh-so-
serious way. That bumps up the kook-o-meter by my
calibration. And if what the Mentifex-expose site says is true,
I believe Arthur is the only one who has paid to have a kook
book published. That's one-up on Longley, even! I mean, have
you *seen* the ASCII art? Have you *seen* how convinced he
is that those are drawings of *real practical value*? Arthur is
a nutcase through and through.
> Sizemore's score should be higher than that of Zick.
Perhaps you can explain Lester's "differential mathematics"
to me. It certainly doesn't look anything like differential equations
from calculus. I especially want to know how the "distance
between 'apple' and 'orange'" is a number. Whenever people
invent their own math, and do so very poorly, I have to bump
their kook score. Something so fundamental usually builds
a rotten foundation for bigger ideas. That's also why Ken
gets a high score (though for other reasons besides).
> Hmm, Ken's score should also be higher than Zick's.
And on my scale, it is. Not only does Ken have a non-
mainstream view of math (which has not been shown to
be useful or even consistent), he also has some flaky
ideas about physics. And his bizarre posting style and
emotional outbursts indicate a fair amount of kookocity
to me.
Dave
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
David Longley
<dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> writes
you travel much? Note how concerned you are to make alliances....
If you like this kind of "activity", you should look up "Personal
Construct Theory" (originally by George Kelly, first created remarkably
close to when "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" was published back in 1951).
They even got round to using computers! I'm not sure how popular it
still is, but they used to get clients to generate a whole load of
bi-polar constructs and elements and then subject this Repertory Grid to
multi-dimensional scaling, principal components analysis etc to show how
one made sense of the world! Much loved by organisations intrigued by
what their employees think.
But note - all it basically tells one is how one is disposed to verbally
behave, and in your case - there's no need for PCA* etc - it's obvious.
You're just showing is what an arrogant and ignorant you are prepared to
be. Don't kid yourself that having an education in some areas in any way
protects you from behaving that way elsewhere!
* As I've said elsewhere, use of this sort of statistical technology in
mentalistic contexts of propositional attitude (other than de dicto) is
highly dubious to the point of being pseudo-science.
--
David Longley
David Longley
<dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> writes
>"John H." <johnh@faraway.> wrote in message
>news:408b...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> Oh come on David, this is insulting, how come I'm not on the list?
>> [...]
>
>I haven't read many of your posts. My kookmeter registered
>"insufficient sample". Anyway, you should join the fun and
>cast your votes. Maybe an average of everyone's votes will
>say something interesting about the group.
>
>Dave
No, it will just tell you something about their current verbal
dispositions. But that is what some of us have been saying needs to
change as part of a more general repertoire that needs change.
Looks like your metering is far too limited a practice by the way.
--
David Longley
Neil W Rickert
>news:c6gi4m$h6b$1...@usenet.cso.niu.edu...
>> Sizemore's score should be higher than that of Zick.
>Perhaps you can explain Lester's "differential mathematics"
>to me.
Lester cannot explain that himself. I have tried several times to
draw out an explanation.
But you are right. I withdraw my disagreement on the relative
position of Zick and Sizemore.
David Longley
<ricke...@cs.niu.edu> writes
You won't get matters any clearer playing politics Rickert. You've tried
that before and all you got was a bad dose of hysteria! What you really
need to do is look into why you've stopped learning.
Maybe you should have a chat with Minsky on that score - he's interested
in the same question apparently (albeit perhaps more widely). You
clearly don't listen to what I have to say, or any other teachers aka
"dogmatists" (on the planet Rickertia).
--
David Longley
Arthur T. Murray
>
>> Your score for Arthur is too high. At least he is able to laugh
>> at himself now and then.
>
> Yet at other times, he can be very bombastic,
> and in an oh-so-serious way.
http://www.nanomagazine.com/i.php?id=01_10_24
http://www.sl4.org/archive/0205/3829.html
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/307824.307853
> That bumps up the kook-o-meter by my calibration.
> And if what the Mentifex-expose site says is true,
> I believe Arthur is the only one who has paid to have
> a kook book published. That's one-up on Longley, even!
You meant to say "cook book", right? AI4U = "AI Cook Book".
http://isbn.nu/0595654371 -- hardbound AI4U textbook sources;
http://isbn.nu/0595259227 -- paperback AI4U textbook sources;
http://robots.net/person/AI4U/ -- personal info about author.
> I mean, have you *seen* the ASCII art? Have you *seen* how
> convinced he is that those are drawings of *real practical value*?
> Arthur is a nutcase through and through.
What if your ostensible "kook" is a messenger from the future bringing
http://freshmeat.net/projects/ai - solution to artificial intelligence?
What if the following Cognitive Architecture is the Seed AI you need?
Artificial Life of the Immortal Robot Mind (Main Alife Mind Loop)
--- Security
--- --- HCI (Human-Computer Interaction)
--- --- Rejuvenate (for cyborg immortality)
--- --- psiDecay
--- --- Ego
--- Sensorium
--- --- Audition
--- --- --- Listen
--- --- --- --- audSTM (auditory Short Term Memory)
--- --- --- --- --- audRecog (auditory Recognition)
--- --- --- oldConcept
--- --- --- --- Parser
--- --- --- --- --- Instantiate
--- --- --- --- Activate
--- --- --- --- --- spreadAct (spreading Activation)
--- --- --- newConcept (machine learning)
--- --- --- --- enVocab (English Vocabulary)
--- --- --- --- Parser
--- --- --- --- --- Instantiate
--- Emotion
--- --- Cognitive Component
--- --- --- Physiological Component
--- Think
--- --- Activate
--- --- --- spreadAct (spreading Activation)
--- --- English
--- --- --- Ask
--- --- --- --- wtAuxSDo (whatDoSubjectsDo?)
--- --- --- --- --- Speech
--- --- --- --- --- --- Reentry
--- --- --- negSVO
--- --- --- --- auxVerb
--- --- --- --- --- Speech
--- --- --- --- --- --- Reentry
--- --- --- SVO (Subject+Verb+Object)
--- --- --- --- nounPhrase
--- --- --- --- --- Reify
--- --- --- --- --- Speech
--- --- --- --- --- --- Reentry
--- --- --- --- --- Activate
--- --- --- --- --- --- spreadAct
--- --- --- --- verbPhrase
--- --- --- --- --- Reify
--- --- --- --- --- Speech
--- --- --- --- --- --- Reentry
--- --- --- --- --- nounPhrase
--- --- --- --- Conjoin
--- --- --- --- --- Speech
--- --- --- --- --- --- Reentry
--- Volition
--- Motorium
AT Murray
--
2004 America and 1944 Nazi Germany as seen from the future:
Bush=Hitler Cheney=Bormann Rumsfeld=Goring Ashcroft=Himmler
Paul Bremer = Hans Frank; Ahmed Chelabi = Vidkun Quisling;
Fallujah=Guernica Halliburton=Krupp Guantanamo=Auschwitz
ken
news:c6iilt$fk9$1...@news.astound.net...
> "Neil W Rickert" <ricke...@cs.niu.edu> wrote in message
> news:c6gi4m$h6b$1...@usenet.cso.niu.edu...
> > [...]
> [...]
> > Hmm, Ken's score should also be higher than Zick's.
>
> And on my scale, it is. Not only does Ken have a non-
> mainstream view of math (which has not been shown to
> be useful or even consistent), he also has some flaky
> ideas about physics. And his bizarre posting style and
> emotional outbursts indicate a fair amount of kookocity
> to me.
No fish here.
k. p. collins
Neil W Rickert
>What if your ostensible "kook" is a messenger from the future bringing
>http://freshmeat.net/projects/ai - solution to artificial intelligence?
He isn't.
>What if the following Cognitive Architecture is the Seed AI you need?
It isn't.
David B. Held
news:408d...@news.victoria.tc.ca...
> [...]
> > That bumps up the kook-o-meter by my calibration.
> > And if what the Mentifex-expose site says is true,
> > I believe Arthur is the only one who has paid to have
> > a kook book published. That's one-up on Longley, even!
>
> You meant to say "cook book", right? AI4U = "AI Cook Book".
LOL!!! Yeah, they're right. At least you can have a laugh
now and then. You're still a nutcase, though.
David B. Held
news:mUuCqMOw...@longley.demon.co.uk...
> [...]
> No, it will just tell you something about their current verbal
> dispositions. But that is what some of us have been saying
> needs to change as part of a more general repertoire that
> needs change.
>
> Looks like your metering is far too limited a practice by the way.
Do you know what the word "laugh" means? Are you familiar
with that funny sound other humans make sometimes when
you say something? The one that sounds kinda like chimps
and monkeys? That sound means: "Don't take it so seriously",
and I seriously hope most people are making that sound when
they read this thread.
David Longley
<dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> writes
>"David Longley" <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:mUuCqMOw...@longley.demon.co.uk...
>> [...]
>> No, it will just tell you something about their current verbal
>> dispositions. But that is what some of us have been saying
>> needs to change as part of a more general repertoire that
>> needs change.
>>
>> Looks like your metering is far too limited a practice by the way.
>
>Do you know what the word "laugh" means? Are you familiar
>with that funny sound other humans make sometimes when
>you say something? The one that sounds kinda like chimps
>and monkeys? That sound means: "Don't take it so seriously",
>and I seriously hope most people are making that sound when
>they read this thread.
>
>Dave
>
>
I'm trying to imagine you as a baboon - - - - - - yep.............. got
it.
I'm not sure your encouraging me to think of you that way is in your
long term best interests though. Still, if you think it will help in the
short term, I'll do my best.
--
David Longley
Eray Ozkural exa
> Just for fun, I thought we could vote on "kook credibility" or
> "kookability" of some of the more regular posters here.
> Low means "not kook" and high means "very kook". Here's
> a tenative list with my votes (in the order in which I happen
> to remember the names):
>
> David Longley: 6
> Glen Sizemore: 3
> Curt Welch: 3
> patty: 1
> Eray Ozkural: 1
> Ken Collins: 8
> Arthur T. Murray: 10
> Lester Zick: 4
> David Held: ? (go ahead and give me a 10 if you like ;)
> Neil Rickert: 1.5 (for not buying into Fredkinism ;> )
>
> These are just people whose posts I've actually read now
> and then, which is why I don't include other posters that are
> obviously prolific. Feel free to add names if you have an
> opinion.
While this post may look fun, it does not seem to serve much
purpose... Was your intention to warn Arthur and David, who would
easily qualify as kooks, or did you just mean to offend every frequent
poster?
For the less serious minded, what about all the people who are not on
the list, or not even on this group? Where would they wind up on your
scoring system, I wonder. There are many famous people with eccentric
ideas such as Roger Penrose, Jack Sarfatti, David Chalmers, Hacker,
and so forth...
--
Eray
David B. Held
> [...]
> I'm not sure your encouraging me to think of you that way is in
> your long term best interests though. Still, if you think it will help
> in the short term, I'll do my best.
If thinking of me as a baboon makes you laugh, then go for it!
I have nothing to lose. You have no power over me, so nothing
you do affects my "long term best interests". However, laughing
will almost certainly be good for you.
patty
I think a more interesting list could be constructed by ordering people
according to who they respond to and who responds to them. Of course
that might be a bit too extensional for this crowd. But in any case, i
am happy to have made the list :)
patty
David B. Held
news:fa69ae35.04042...@posting.google.com...
> [...]
> While this post may look fun, it does not seem to serve much
> purpose...
Well, if you didn't have fun thinking about it, then it failed.
> Was your intention to warn Arthur and David, who would
> easily qualify as kooks, or did you just mean to offend every
> frequent poster?
Why should I warn Arthur and David? Warn them of what?
Offending posters? Well, if they don't realize that they have
non-mainstream ideas, I don't see how they would realize
they ought to be offended. And I didn't even name every
frequent poster. Just the ones where I've read more than
1 or 2 posts.
> For the less serious minded, what about all the people who
> are not on the list, or not even on this group? Where would
> they wind up on your scoring system, I wonder.
That's my point. It's not *my* scoring system. I think it would
be more fun if everyone gave their own scores. In fact, it's
obvious that some people I think are kooks, others think are
normal, and vice versa. That's the type of information that I
was trying to uncover.
> There are many famous people with eccentric ideas such
> as Roger Penrose, Jack Sarfatti, David Chalmers, Hacker,
> and so forth...
Yes, they should all be added to the list. I would rank these
three, at least:
Roger Penrose: 5 (I read both his popular books on AI, and he
isn't so much a kook as someone desperately hanging onto
an idea)
Frank Tipler: 9 (I read The Physics of Immortality, and this guy
has gone well off the deep end)
David Chalmers: 3 (he isn't a kook, just a philosopher; if
Chalmers is a kook, then so are all philosophers)
David B. Held
> [...]
> Here we see you up to your "redneck" ignorant political games
> again. Do you travel much?
I leave the house, which would probably constitute "travel" in your
world.
> Note how concerned you are to make alliances....
> [...]
LOL!!! I criticise anyone and everyone I disagree with. The idea
that I come here for political intrigue is hilarious! You're almost
as paranoid as Ken!
In case you haven't figured it out, I've exhausted my patience with
your nonsense, so I'm just going to stick with "fun" replies to you.
Michael Olea
pat...@SPAMicyberspace.net wrote on 4/26/04 1:02 PM:
Are you kidding? Eray loves graph theory, cluster analysis, and kernel
methods. He's probably already worked out a c.a.p. diffusion kernel -
support group cluster vectors...
> But in any case, i
> am happy to have made the list :)
Did it reveal anything interesting?
>
> patty
Lester Zick
exa) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
Oh well, I expect a little comic relief is welcome. Innovators always
start off as kooks. Unfortunately kooks don't consider themselves as
such. Which probably defines the subject to begin with and why nobody
agrees. There must be some theory of kookery that applies.
Regards - Lester
Acme Diagnostics
"David B. Held" <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote:
>"Eray Ozkural exa" <er...@bilkent.edu.tr> wrote in message
>news:fa69ae35.04042...@posting.google.com...
>> [...]
>> While this post may look fun, it does not seem to serve much
>> purpose...
>
>Well, if you didn't have fun thinking about it, then it failed.
It *is* fun and entertaining! If you ever want to see a productive
work-group disintegrate fast, just have each member rate
the other members, then publish the results. But of course
a good lawyer would argue that "productive" is a fact not in
evidence. But then who listens to lawyers.
Larry
David Longley
<dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> writes
>"David Longley" <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:SkuPmcIz...@longley.demon.co.uk...
>> [...]
>> Here we see you up to your "redneck" ignorant political games
>> again. Do you travel much?
>
>I leave the house, which would probably constitute "travel" in your
>world.
>
>> Note how concerned you are to make alliances....
>> [...]
>
>LOL!!! I criticise anyone and everyone I disagree with. The idea
>that I come here for political intrigue is hilarious! You're almost
>as paranoid as Ken!
No - you're just naively unaware of how you're behaving. They're
operants you know. In terms you understand, you want social approval.
>
>In case you haven't figured it out, I've exhausted my patience with
>your nonsense, so I'm just going to stick with "fun" replies to you.
>
No - you've just exhausted your rather shallow repertoire of verbal
behaviours in this area. I see you're busy doing some homework
elsewhere, but you're cramming and it isn't working. You're now having
to resort to even more primitive mentalistic rhetoric as a defence.
You should seriously consider giving up and just do some reading as
advised.
--
David Longley
John H.
"David B. Held" <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:c6jo4j$mic$1...@news.astound.net...
> "David Longley" <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ZZcdJcV5...@longley.demon.co.uk...
> > [...]
> > I'm not sure your encouraging me to think of you that way is in
> > your long term best interests though. Still, if you think it will help
> > in the short term, I'll do my best.
>
> If thinking of me as a baboon makes you laugh, then go for it!
> I have nothing to lose.
You may learn something though:
Darwin's M Book:
"Origin of man now proved. - Metaphysics must flourish. - He who understands
baboon will do more towards metaphysics than Locke."
qw6
> Bush=Hitler Cheney=Bormann Rumsfeld=Goring Ashcroft=Himmler
> Paul Bremer = Hans Frank; Ahmed Chelabi = Vidkun Quisling;
> Fallujah=Guernica Halliburton=Krupp Guantanamo=Auschwitz
New world order is Bush's perestroyka. Forced freedom is like a
machine. Bush is a machine.
qw6
>
> "JPL Verhey" <p...@nospamwhatsoever.nu> wrote in message
> news:408b9243$0$41759$5fc...@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl...
> > [...]
> > My subjective, totally untestable and unjustified intensional
> > scorelist, based on posts that made most sense to me, sound
> > sensible or provoked more interest in a subject:
>
> Hey, we only want exacting logically-derived scientific
> judgements here. There's no room for waffling or fudging on
> this list!
>
> > David Longleg: 4
> > Darth Sizemore: 8
> > Curt Welch: 6
> > patty: 2
> > Eray Ozkural: 2
> > Ken Collins: 5 (a pitty he doesn't have it-all on some website??)
> > Arthur T. Murray: dunno
> > Lester Zick: 1
> > David Held: 2
> > Neil Rickert: dunno
> > qw6: 1,5
>
> Hahaha! qw6 isn't a kook, he's a troll.
I am a machine animal.
qw6
Compai philosophy. Qwoo qwoo, chin cho wai chi.
David B. Held
> [...]
> No - you're just naively unaware of how you're behaving.
> They're operants you know. In terms you understand, you
> want social approval.
I get social approval from real life. Usenet is for learning and
fun. And when it comes to you, all fun.
> [...]
> No - you've just exhausted your rather shallow repertoire of
> verbal behaviours in this area.
Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!! I certainly hope I am not the only
one who sees the enormously hilarious irony of this comment!!!
> I see you're busy doing some homework elsewhere,
How did you know I was doing homework? Maybe you're
stalking me! Actually, I'm writing a linguistic parser in CLIPS
right now. It's a lot more fun than I thought it would be.
> but you're cramming and it isn't working.
Well, I don't need to "cram". I've got the class completely
under my direct control (as one of my more bizarre friends
would say).
> You're now having to resort to even more primitive mentalistic
> rhetoric as a defence.
Heh, heh..."primitive mentalistic rhetoric"...that's another for the
"Longley Lexicon". Google, here we come!!!
> You should seriously consider giving up and just do some
> reading as advised.
I read a lot. That's how I learn. But I also read carefully. Yeah,
I like to read kook books now and then for fun (hence, The Physics
of Immortality and Shadows of the Mind). But that's because the
kook books *are* fun. Kook books that would not be fun are
"AI4U" and "Fragments of Behavior - The Life and Times of
David Longley". I don't read boring kook books, because that
is a waste of time.
David Longley
<dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> writes
>"David Longley" <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:6+vlwMG3...@longley.demon.co.uk...
>> [...]
>> No - you're just naively unaware of how you're behaving.
>> They're operants you know. In terms you understand, you
>> want social approval.
>
>I get social approval from real life. Usenet is for learning and
>fun. And when it comes to you, all fun.
Seems to me you rather arbitrarily define whatever you like to suit
whatever short term self-interested goals you have. Try entering:
nefarious rhetoric Quine
into Google groups. Perhaps you can learn something from that.
>
>> [...]
>> No - you've just exhausted your rather shallow repertoire of
>> verbal behaviours in this area.
>
>Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!! I certainly hope I am not the only
>one who sees the enormously hilarious irony of this comment!!!
>
That's the trouble with so much that you say, you either contradict
yourself or just reveal yourself to be an obnoxious twit who has no
insight into where he's going wrong, even when it's pointed out!. That's
*why* you're so irritatingly ignorant and arrogant. It's behaviour all
too characteristic of young, immature primates and it's a function of
limited experience. Others *can*, and will, see through it you should
know.
The truth is, you're just another snake-oil peddling deluded idiot on
the take. I hope you'll grow out of it.
--
David Longley
JPL Verhey
> In article <c6kurf$592$1...@news.astound.net>, David B. Held
> <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> writes
> >"David Longley" <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:6+vlwMG3...@longley.demon.co.uk...
> >> [...]
> >> No - you're just naively unaware of how you're behaving.
> >> They're operants you know. In terms you understand, you
> >> want social approval.
> >
> >I get social approval from real life. Usenet is for learning and
> >fun. And when it comes to you, all fun.
>
> Seems to me you rather arbitrarily define whatever you like to suit
> whatever short term self-interested goals you have. Try entering:
>
> nefarious rhetoric Quine
>
> into Google groups. Perhaps you can learn something from that.
>
> >
> >> [...]
> >> No - you've just exhausted your rather shallow repertoire of
> >> verbal behaviours in this area.
> >
> >Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!! I certainly hope I am not the only
> >one who sees the enormously hilarious irony of this comment!!!
> >
>
> That's the trouble with so much that you say, you either contradict
> yourself or just reveal yourself to be an obnoxious twit who has no
> insight into where he's going wrong, even when it's pointed out!. That's
> *why* you're so irritatingly ignorant and arrogant.
<g> "It takes one to know one" </g>
David Longley
Verhey <p...@nospamwhatsoever.nu> writes
OK, I'll call you on that. Tell me why *you* think that. Or do you think
that a psychologist (or anyone else) must have "problems" themselves in
order to be able to identify them in others. Note the equivocation.
--
David Longley
JPL Verhey
If it were an absolute truth.. no gigle-tags were needed, Long. I always
thought humor lives by the virtue of contradiction. And that's NOT funny.
Neil W Rickert
Hash: SHA1
"David B. Held" <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> writes:
>I read a lot. That's how I learn. But I also read carefully. Yeah,
>I like to read kook books now and then for fun (hence, The Physics
>of Immortality and Shadows of the Mind). But that's because the
>kook books *are* fun.
Yes, those were fun.
I'm not so sure about both being kook books. I got the impression
that Tipler was having fun writing "Immortality", while Penrose was
deadly serious about "Shadows".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (SunOS)
iD8DBQFAjlR8vmGe70vHPUMRAk6kAJ9E6572OnK8H8yE302O3dmHI1ZsdwCg+gng
BGLN+Vf4GcotkRzH0UAfRCY=
=tt2g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Eray Ozkural exa
> "Eray Ozkural exa" <er...@bilkent.edu.tr> wrote in message
> news:fa69ae35.04042...@posting.google.com...
> > [...]
> > While this post may look fun, it does not seem to serve much
> > purpose...
>
> Well, if you didn't have fun thinking about it, then it failed.
>
I did as I implied above, the problem is that meta-discussions,
meta-meta-discussions and meta-meta-meta discussions like this one
never have much use in the end. I've myself done that in the past, and
I don't think I derived any benefit except for inciting more trolling.
It adds up to the noise, unfortunately.
> > Was your intention to warn Arthur and David, who would
> > easily qualify as kooks, or did you just mean to offend every
> > frequent poster?
>
> Why should I warn Arthur and David? Warn them of what?
Kookery and violation of netiquette.
> Offending posters? Well, if they don't realize that they have
> non-mainstream ideas, I don't see how they would realize
> they ought to be offended. And I didn't even name every
> frequent poster. Just the ones where I've read more than
> 1 or 2 posts.
You are right. I think we ought to realize that our ideas are
*necessarily* off the mainstream as I implied later in my post.
> > For the less serious minded, what about all the people who
> > are not on the list, or not even on this group? Where would
> > they wind up on your scoring system, I wonder.
>
> That's my point. It's not *my* scoring system. I think it would
> be more fun if everyone gave their own scores. In fact, it's
> obvious that some people I think are kooks, others think are
> normal, and vice versa. That's the type of information that I
> was trying to uncover.
I see. But telling people to score other didn't seem to me a very
productive idea.
> > There are many famous people with eccentric ideas such
> > as Roger Penrose, Jack Sarfatti, David Chalmers, Hacker,
> > and so forth...
>
> Yes, they should all be added to the list. I would rank these
> three, at least:
>
> Roger Penrose: 5 (I read both his popular books on AI, and he
> isn't so much a kook as someone desperately hanging onto
> an idea)
>
> Frank Tipler: 9 (I read The Physics of Immortality, and this guy
> has gone well off the deep end)
>
> David Chalmers: 3 (he isn't a kook, just a philosopher; if
> Chalmers is a kook, then so are all philosophers)
>
LOL :))) I had Chalmers' zombies on my mind, I didn't know Frank
Tipler but since he got 9 on your scale he must have a competitive
edge.
BTW, I think with my multism theory I certainly deserve more than 1,
maybe as much as Chalmers and Penrose, though I take caution to
indicate that I do not fully support the theory, it's a philosophical
experiment mainly.
Best Regards,
--
Eray Ozkural
bob
> Just for fun, I thought we could vote on "kook credibility" or
> "kookability" of some of the more regular posters here.
> Low means "not kook" and high means "very kook". Here's
> a tenative list with my votes (in the order in which I happen
> to remember the names):
>
> David Longley: 6
> Glen Sizemore: 3
> Curt Welch: 3
> patty: 1
> Eray Ozkural: 1
> Ken Collins: 8
> Arthur T. Murray: 10
> Lester Zick: 4
> David Held: ? (go ahead and give me a 10 if you like ;)
> Neil Rickert: 1.5 (for not buying into Fredkinism ;> )
>
PI = parrot (repeat ad nausem) index
longmore: 200
sizely: 198
welch: 25
patty: 25
ozkural: 50
collins: 150
murray: 175
zick: 50
held: ?
rickert: 25
bob: 250 (parroting longmore parroting himself)
davie wanna cracker.
awwwk.
davie wanna cracker.
awwwk.
Eray Ozkural exa
>
> Are you kidding? Eray loves graph theory, cluster analysis, and kernel
> methods. He's probably already worked out a c.a.p. diffusion kernel -
> support group cluster vectors...
LOL I was actually thinking I could use SV clustering to categorize
the threads by subject. Which kernel I'm not sure, probably these neat
algorithmic kernels. Hmmm.
Best Wishes,
--
Eray Ozkural
Lester Zick
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
Cute. I like it.
Regards - Lester
ken
> "David Longley" <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:SkuPmcIz...@longley.demon.co.uk...
> > [...]
> > Here we see you up to your "redneck" ignorant political games
> > again. Do you travel much?
>
> I leave the house, which would probably constitute "travel" in your
> world.
>
> > Note how concerned you are to make alliances....
> > [...]
>
> LOL!!! I criticise anyone and everyone I disagree with. The idea
> that I come here for political intrigue is hilarious! You're almost
> as paranoid as Ken!
>
> In case you haven't figured it out, I've exhausted my patience with
> your nonsense, so I'm just going to stick with "fun" replies to you.
It's you who hasn't figured out what's
going on between Longley and 'me'.
At least that stuff has some significance.
You're still just 'stabbing in the dark', Held.
k. p. collins
Glen M. Sizemore
Lexicon". Google, here we come!!!
GS: Maybe you should skip that and just look up "animism." I'd hate for you
to not know what to call yourself.
"David B. Held" <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:c6kurf$592$1...@news.astound.net...
John Casey
Aha, so the main posters to this newsgroups are kooks?
That explains a lot! Still I see you are all in good company
with your above list of famous people.
What about one of my favourite authors Steven Pinker?
I am not sure what behaviours you have emitted that
entitle you to call yourself a bona fide kook?
John
rick++
David Longley
<kjc...@hotkey.net.au> writes
Just remember John - behaviour is shaped by ones environment or culture,
and that environment not only shapes public verbal behaviour but private
behaviours. Few here appreciate how behaviour operates according to well
circumscribed primitive heuristics with known biases.
They're behaving this way because they're unsettled and don't
understand!
--
David Longley
Jeff Fox
deserves a 10. But maybe it would be better to give everyone who has
posted a rating based on the number of posts that they have made
to this thread, but extra points should be given for cross posting. ;-)
Best Wishes
David B. Held
news:408ec...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> [...]
> What about one of my favourite authors Steven Pinker?
I have to admit that I'm a big Pinker fan and have read all
4 of his popular books. I'd have to say he's influenced my
thinking a lot. And he's a pesky "mentalist" of the worst
kind, so annoying Longley is an even better reason to read
him!
David B. Held
news:fa69ae35.04042...@posting.google.com...
> [...]
> meta-meta-discussions and meta-meta-meta discussions like
> this one never have much use in the end.
What do you mean? You already experienced the "use"!!!
> I've myself done that in the past, and I don't think I derived any
> benefit except for inciting more trolling. It adds up to the noise,
> unfortunately.
Noise? There's noise here? And I thought the s/n here was
well over 2000 dB. Or is there supposed to be a sign in front
of that?
> > [...]
> > Why should I warn Arthur and David? Warn them of what?
>
> Kookery and violation of netiquette.
LOL!!! I ain't no netcop. Last time I checked, there aren't any
laws against being a kook (which is a good thing for all of us
at some time or another). And as far as netiquette goes, I
would say that Glen is the worst offender with his most annoying
"quoting" style. Can't anyone condition that rat to quote like
a civilized human being? Don't they have Usenet Boxes or
something for that? As far as the massive cross-posting goes,
it seems that nobody from the other groups minds, so I don't
care about that.
> [...]
> I see. But telling people to score other didn't seem to me a very
> productive idea.
Not if your goal is to get people to stand in a circle and sing
"Kumbaya", no. But if you want to get people to stand in a circle
and laugh at each other, that's a pretty good way to do it. Odds
are, the people who aren't laughing are kooks. Anyway, this
group is way too informal and non-technical to worry about
such things as "productivity". It's obvious that nobody here
does real AI work, which is why they're here, instead of working
on it. What's funny are the people who take it so seriously.
> [...]
> I had Chalmers' zombies on my mind, I didn't know Frank
> Tipler but since he got 9 on your scale he must have a
> competitive edge.
Frank is cuckoo for immortality puffs. Neil seems to think the
book was tongue-in-cheek, but physicists I have talked to seem
to think he's gone well off the deep end. Chalmer's zombies
aren't kookery at all. They're a clever philosphical device of the
sort you expect to see from philosophers all the time. I happen
to think that his zombies *are* logically impossible, but that's
a different argument.
> BTW, I think with my multism theory I certainly deserve more
> than 1, maybe as much as Chalmers and Penrose, though I
> take caution to indicate that I do not fully support the theory,
> it's a philosophical experiment mainly.
Well, that's the problem. Having non-mainstream ideas doesn't
make you a kook, despite what others might say about the
"innovators". Believing that your new idea is right in the face of
all evidence to the contrary is what makes you a kook. And
that's why Galileo and Copernicus and Newton and Einstein
weren't kooks, even if the majority disagreed with them at the
time. They had the numbers to back them up. People here
don't even *have* numbers. So the ones who insist they are
right are obviously kooks.
Chalmers isn't a kook because you can't disprove zombies.
They aren't meant to be disprovable. That's the whole point
of them. Unfortunately for Chalmers, buying into zombies
requires you to buy into a lot of other things that he never
brings up, but that's another argument. Penrose isn't a kook
because even though he is earnest and serious in his belief
that consciousness transcends machinery, he admits that
he doesn't know where exactly this quantum black box is
and how it works (despite the hype about microtubules).
But the idea that quantum-level effects unique to a particular
cognitive substrate might not be reproduced on another
substrate is not mere kookery. At the worst, it's very very
sophisticated kookery. But mostly, it's just desperation.
Tipler, on the other hand, goes to extravagant lengths to
project the future of the universe, the behavior of life and
intelligence, and a bunch of other stuff that astrologers and
palmists would blush to predict. It doesn't bother Tipler that
the cosmological constant might be too small, or that a
collapsing universe full of black holes might not even
result in a "Big Crunch". It's this disregard for plausible
alternatives that makes Tipler a kook, in my book. If it were
a mere 30 page pamphlet, then I could buy that it's not to
be taken seriously. But it's more like a 300-page tome on
immortality. I have to take that seriously, no matter what the
author says. Oh, and his discussion about beautiful women
is just too funny to read with a straight face. You really should
check out the book. It's called "The Physics of Immortality."
But then, what do I know? Some people think Ed Fredkin
is a kook, but I not only buy into his computational view of
the universe (which I don't think should be called
"computationalism", like some people have done); I also
think it happens to be a rather simple and elegant way to
look at it. So maybe I deserve a 10 too.
John Casey
If you say so David. But in practice people seem to have managed
to discover and invent new things without the above insight.
> Few here appreciate how behaviour operates according to well
> circumscribed primitive heuristics with known biases.
I am well aware that "brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth".
"How the Mind Works" Steven Pinker. Good Ideas - ecological
intelligence.
> They're behaving this way because they're unsettled and don't
> understand!
Oh well. What can you do? I can repeat the suggestions I and
others have made before but you have your own way of doing
things and that's fine. Whatever works for you.
--
John Casey
patty
I think his zombies are physically impossible.
>
>>BTW, I think with my multism theory I certainly deserve more
>>than 1, maybe as much as Chalmers and Penrose, though I
>>take caution to indicate that I do not fully support the theory,
>>it's a philosophical experiment mainly.
>
>
> Well, that's the problem. Having non-mainstream ideas doesn't
> make you a kook, despite what others might say about the
> "innovators". Believing that your new idea is right in the face of
> all evidence to the contrary is what makes you a kook. And
> that's why Galileo and Copernicus and Newton and Einstein
> weren't kooks, even if the majority disagreed with them at the
> time. They had the numbers to back them up. People here
> don't even *have* numbers. So the ones who insist they are
> right are obviously kooks.
>
I think Longley has numbers.
> Chalmers isn't a kook because you can't disprove zombies.
> They aren't meant to be disprovable. That's the whole point
> of them.
And that's what i can't get my pee brain around.
> Unfortunately for Chalmers, buying into zombies
> requires you to buy into a lot of other things that he never
> brings up, but that's another argument. Penrose isn't a kook
> because even though he is earnest and serious in his belief
> that consciousness transcends machinery, he admits that
> he doesn't know where exactly this quantum black box is
> and how it works (despite the hype about microtubules).
> But the idea that quantum-level effects unique to a particular
> cognitive substrate might not be reproduced on another
> substrate is not mere kookery. At the worst, it's very very
> sophisticated kookery. But mostly, it's just desperation.
>
I think Penrose is a 6.
> Tipler, on the other hand, goes to extravagant lengths to
> project the future of the universe, the behavior of life and
> intelligence, and a bunch of other stuff that astrologers and
> palmists would blush to predict. It doesn't bother Tipler that
> the cosmological constant might be too small, or that a
> collapsing universe full of black holes might not even
> result in a "Big Crunch". It's this disregard for plausible
> alternatives that makes Tipler a kook, in my book. If it were
> a mere 30 page pamphlet, then I could buy that it's not to
> be taken seriously. But it's more like a 300-page tome on
> immortality. I have to take that seriously, no matter what the
> author says. Oh, and his discussion about beautiful women
> is just too funny to read with a straight face. You really should
> check out the book. It's called "The Physics of Immortality."
>
Tipler didnt even make my list.
> But then, what do I know? Some people think Ed Fredkin
> is a kook, but I not only buy into his computational view of
> the universe (which I don't think should be called
> "computationalism", like some people have done); I also
> think it happens to be a rather simple and elegant way to
> look at it. So maybe I deserve a 10 too.
>
I think you are a 1.
patty
Glen M. Sizemore
to discover and invent new things without the above insight.
GS: But not a successful science of behavior.
"John Casey" <kjc...@hotkey.net.au> wrote in message
news:408f8...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Glen M. Sizemore
4 of his popular books. I'd have to say he's influenced my
thinking a lot. And he's a pesky "mentalist" of the worst
kind, so annoying Longley is an even better reason to read
him!
GS: I don't think you need to read anymore, David. You already say a bunch
of idiotic things. Are you never sated on inanity?
"David B. Held" <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:c6nlam$rtv$1...@news.astound.net...
David Longley
Sizemore <gmsiz...@yahoo.com> writes
>DH: I have to admit that I'm a big Pinker fan and have read all
>4 of his popular books. I'd have to say he's influenced my
>thinking a lot. And he's a pesky "mentalist" of the worst
>kind, so annoying Longley is an even better reason to read
>him!
>
>
>
>GS: I don't think you need to read anymore, David. You already say a bunch
>of idiotic things. Are you never sated on inanity?
>
>
Some, at this point, may give a moment to monkeys' obsession with
wind-screen wipers. Why don't they get tired of the same antics, car
after car, day after day?
Changing species, many women lament over their partners' obsession with
other women's genitals! Why don't their own suffice?
Given that he likes the word "kook" - let's see if he follows up the
interview transcript I referenced earlier today, and whether he learns
anything from it.
What's the problem with substitution of identicals indeed!
>
>
>"David B. Held" <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote in message
>news:c6nlam$rtv$1...@news.astound.net...
>> "John Casey" <kjc...@hotkey.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:408ec...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>> > [...]
>> > What about one of my favourite authors Steven Pinker?
>> > [...]
>>
>> I have to admit that I'm a big Pinker fan and have read all
>> 4 of his popular books. I'd have to say he's influenced my
>> thinking a lot. And he's a pesky "mentalist" of the worst
>> kind, so annoying Longley is an even better reason to read
>> him!
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> Version: 6.0.668 / Virus Database: 430 - Release Date: 4/24/2004
>>
>>
>
>
--
David Longley
Neil W Rickert
Hash: SHA1
"David B. Held" <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> writes:
> If it were
>a mere 30 page pamphlet, then I could buy that it's not to
>be taken seriously. But it's more like a 300-page tome on
>immortality.
A 30 page pamphlet would have suggested that Tipler took
himself seriously. With the 300 page tome, he was laughing -- all
the way to the bank.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (SunOS)
iD8DBQFAj6ApvmGe70vHPUMRAnv1AJ0QmsmPfRDdzTm5lEO7+ykKLNdzxwCgu+cj
Uq+6rexpunIrR/rfZASHnXE=
=nqZ2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ken
"zone of randomness", AoK, Ap4.
k. p. collins
David B. Held
news:c6o77d$fvj$2...@usenet.cso.niu.edu...
> [...]
> A 30 page pamphlet would have suggested that Tipler took
> himself seriously. With the 300 page tome, he was laughing --
> all the way to the bank.
That's what makes me wonder about Arthur...is he really a kook?
Or just a really clever snake-oil salesman?
David B. Held
news:0yLjc.3083$Rd4.463782@attbi_s51...
> [...]
> I think Longley has numbers.
He might have numbers for the uncontroversial portions of his
practice, such as the parts directly concerning applied/clinical
psychology. And as I've said many times, I don't see any fault
with using behaviorist techniques in that domain (and that, in
fact, it may well be a virtue). The numbers he *doesn't* have
are the ones that support the argument that behaviorism is a
*necessary* and *sufficient* paradigm to study and explain
*human behavior*. That's where he, Sizemore, and the rest of
RB drift off into KookyLand. Glen's arguments boil down to:
"I don't believe in homunculi." Longley's boil down to: "Philosophy
shows us the incompetence of all alternatives." But there is no
*positive* demonstration of how behaviorism is *theoretically
better*. And don't even mention substitution and Oedipus. I
have yet to see where substitution even gets used in practice,
let alone how it manages to save otherwise useless
observations in theory. As far as I can tell, arguing for the benefits
of substitution of identicals is like saying one programming
language is better than another because you can write the
source code in color...IN COLOR! Will it be faster? No. Will it
be smaller? No. Will it be safer? No. Will it be more correct?
No. But, but, but...it's COLOR!!! See what I'm getting at?
> > Chalmers isn't a kook because you can't disprove zombies.
> > They aren't meant to be disprovable. That's the whole point
> > of them.
>
> And that's what i can't get my pee brain around.
You sure you didn't mean "pea brain"? If your brain is peeing,
you might want to see a physician. ;) Anyway, Chalmers is a
philosopher. If he created an argument that was disprovable,
someone would come along and disprove it. Then he would
look stupid, right? So he's not going to make a falsifiable
argument. He's going to make one that's unassailable. And
by claiming that it's not logically impossible to have a
consciousness without qualia, he's just exploiting our lack of
information about consciousness and qualia. His argument
*only* works because of that ignorance. Once we get to a point
where we have a more or less full understanding, his argument
will fall to pieces, because we will be able to decide. Until then,
it's just a professional philosopher playing word games.
> [...]
> I think Penrose is a 6.
I guess another reason I'm not willing to give Penrose such a
high number is that Penrose has done a *lot* of good work. He
helped prove the existence of singularities in black holes (along
with Hawking, of course), he discovered Penrose tilings (which
say something very interesting about determinism), and a bunch
of other legit stuff. Whereas Tipler has supposedly done some
good work, but it's obviously not quite as high-profile as what
Penrose has done. And whereas Penrose tries to come up
with physically testable points of accessibility for his theory,
Tipler does not. Tipler just asks us to buy his "just-so" story
of the future.
> [...]
> I think you are a 1.
Awww, shucks, lil' lady...I'll fix yer robot!
Neil W Rickert
>news:c6o77d$fvj$2...@usenet.cso.niu.edu...
>> [...]
>> A 30 page pamphlet would have suggested that Tipler took
>> himself seriously. With the 300 page tome, he was laughing --
>> all the way to the bank.
>That's what makes me wonder about Arthur...is he really a kook?
>Or just a really clever snake-oil salesman?
I don't know about Arthur. It isn't hard to see how Tipler could
have made some money for writing his romp. But I don't know what
Arthur could gain from mentifex -- perhaps he was looking for his
15 minutes of fame.
Eray Ozkural exa
"David B. Held" <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote in message news:<c6opsp$3s7$1...@news.astound.net>...
Yes, you are right, you understand the matter perfectly. However, it
does not help that you speak of the truth, especially when we are on
an unmoderated newsgroup which is being constantly spammed by two
idiots. The only solution is to remain silent and let them speak to
only those who would listen to them, and of course warning those that
do converse with them to take a look at themselves and end the
disruption. While doing that one must never engage in meta-discussions
beyond warning others!
Do not waste your mind with this foolishness called radical
behaviorism. It is not worth that many bits of thought.
David Longley
Ozkural exa <er...@bilkent.edu.tr> writes
Is your head beginning to stink a bit?
--
David Longley
David B. Held
> [...]
> Do not waste your mind with this foolishness called radical
> behaviorism. It is not worth that many bits of thought.
Well, the problem is that much of what passes for "AI talk" is
only marginally better than talking about RB. If there were, in
fact, much productive AI talk that was being interfered with by
RB, I would ignore RB altogether. As it is, there is nothing new
to say about AI without getting our hands dirty, but most people
here are more interested in talking about it than doing it. Some
people even talk about doing it, but I wonder where the results
are?
Eray Ozkural exa
> "Eray Ozkural exa" <er...@bilkent.edu.tr> wrote in message
> news:fa69ae35.04043...@posting.google.com...
> > [...]
> > Do not waste your mind with this foolishness called radical
> > behaviorism. It is not worth that many bits of thought.
>
> Well, the problem is that much of what passes for "AI talk" is
> only marginally better than talking about RB.
Frankly, no.
> If there were, in
> fact, much productive AI talk that was being interfered with by
> RB, I would ignore RB altogether.
Do ignore RB altogether, then.
> As it is, there is nothing new
> to say about AI without getting our hands dirty, but most people
> here are more interested in talking about it than doing it.
Don't judge people that way, please.
> Some
> people even talk about doing it, but I wonder where the results
> are?
me, too.
David Longley
The fact is that people generally feel challenged by whatever they don't
understand. They are naturally suspicious of what they think challenges
them. Sadly, this provides no reliable guide (by itself) as to how best
to respond to the challenge. For that you need experience. Are you
*sure* yours is adequate?.
I suspect you (like Held etc.) have to rely on intuition, and when that
doesn't suffice, you naturally turn to your local peer group. In this
context, that just won't suffice.
So.......... what's a joystick jockey like you to do?
You could read "Fragments" or you could just listen to Glen. The choice
is yours, or you could do both..
--
David Longley
David B. Held
> [...]
> The fact is that people generally feel challenged by whatever they
> don't understand.
Do you understand palmistry? Does that "challenge" you?
> [...]
> I suspect you (like Held etc.) have to rely on intuition, and when
> that doesn't suffice, you naturally turn to your local peer group.
Intuition is underrated. And speaking of peer groups, isn't your
entire point that intelligence is a socially constructed phenomenon?
Then doesn't it stand to reason that you would go to your peer group
to solve problems? Try to be consistent. It's embarrassing when
I have to point out contradictions all the time.
> [...]
> You could read "Fragments" or you could just listen to Glen.
> [...]
Glen hasn't made any of his material available in audio, that I
know of. Perhaps you meant "read", or perhaps you meant
"listen" in the *intensional* sense. Oops!
John Casey
> "Eray Ozkural exa" <er...@bilkent.edu.tr> wrote in message
> news:fa69ae35.04043...@posting.google.com...
> > [...]
> > Do not waste your mind with this foolishness called radical
> > behaviorism. It is not worth that many bits of thought.
>
> Well, the problem is that much of what passes for "AI talk" is
> only marginally better than talking about RB. If there were, in
> fact, much productive AI talk that was being interfered with by
> RB, I would ignore RB altogether. As it is, there is nothing new
> to say about AI without getting our hands dirty, but most people
> here are more interested in talking about it than doing it. Some
> people even talk about doing it, but I wonder where the results
> are?
Talking about it is the *philosophy* part of this newsgroup.
Getting your hands dirty would be the newsgroup comp.ai
Perhaps we are at the stage physics was before Einstein came
along with his theory that would explain why the speed of light
is measured the same for different inertial observers? We need
an Einstein to rethink the way we think about the problem of
what it means to "have a mind", or what it means to be "intelligent"?
I have gotten my hands dirty but haven't been able to make my
programs any smarter than the examples given in the books on
AI that I have read.
The reason people like talking about things instead of actually
doing them is because talk is cheap and easy and doing things
is hard and expensive in both money and time.
The point I have made in other posts is that it is only when you
come to actually code your ideas can you tell if you have said
anything meaningful at all.
Philosophers merely pose the questions that can ultimately
only be solved and verified by science.
--
John
David Longley
<dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> writes
>"David Longley" <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:kJOStUFu...@longley.demon.co.uk...
>> [...]
>> The fact is that people generally feel challenged by whatever they
>> don't understand.
>
>Do you understand palmistry? Does that "challenge" you?
>
>> [...]
>> I suspect you (like Held etc.) have to rely on intuition, and when
>> that doesn't suffice, you naturally turn to your local peer group.
>
>Intuition is underrated.
o, it's demonstrably over-rated.
> And speaking of peer groups, isn't your
>entire point that intelligence is a socially constructed phenomenon?
No that is *not* my entire point.
>Then doesn't it stand to reason that you would go to your peer group
>
>to solve problems? Try to be consistent. It's embarrassing when
>I have to point out contradictions all the time.
>
There is no contradiction. Like so much else that you say, you make
assumptions, and then you make non sequiturs. If you read what I said
(and look at what you said) you might see that.
>> [...]
>> You could read "Fragments" or you could just listen to Glen.
>> [...]
>
>Glen hasn't made any of his material available in audio, that I
>know of. Perhaps you meant "read", or perhaps you meant
>"listen" in the *intensional* sense. Oops!
>
>Dave
Idiot.
--
David Longley
David Longley
>news:kJOStUFu...@longley.demon.co.uk...
>> [...]
>> The fact is that people generally feel challenged by whatever they
>> don't understand.
>
>Do you understand palmistry? Does that "challenge" you?
>
>> [...]
>> I suspect you (like Held etc.) have to rely on intuition, and when
>> that doesn't suffice, you naturally turn to your local peer group.
>
>Intuition is underrated.
No, it's demonstrably over-rated (and if you'd read some of the material
I advised you to read instead of just "thinking", you'd have found out
why).
> And speaking of peer groups, isn't your
>entire point that intelligence is a socially constructed phenomenon?
No that is *not* my entire point.
>Then doesn't it stand to reason that you would go to your peer group
>
>to solve problems? Try to be consistent. It's embarrassing when
>I have to point out contradictions all the time.
>
There is no contradiction. Like so much else that you say, you make
assumptions, and then you make non sequiturs. If you read what I
actually said (and look again at what you have said) you might see that.
>> [...]
>> You could read "Fragments" or you could just listen to Glen.
>> [...]
>
>Glen hasn't made any of his material available in audio, that I
>know of. Perhaps you meant "read", or perhaps you meant
>"listen" in the *intensional* sense. Oops!
>
>Dave
Idiot.
--
David Longley
JPL Verhey
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Casey" <kjc...@hotkey.net.au>
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Kook Index
>
> "David B. Held" <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote in message
> news:c6u6iq$l2r$1...@news.astound.net...
> > "Eray Ozkural exa" <er...@bilkent.edu.tr> wrote in message
> > news:fa69ae35.04043...@posting.google.com...
> > > [...]
> > > Do not waste your mind with this foolishness called radical
> > > behaviorism. It is not worth that many bits of thought.
> >
> > Well, the problem is that much of what passes for "AI talk" is
> > only marginally better than talking about RB. If there were, in
> > fact, much productive AI talk that was being interfered with by
> > RB, I would ignore RB altogether. As it is, there is nothing new
> > to say about AI without getting our hands dirty, but most people
> > here are more interested in talking about it than doing it. Some
> > people even talk about doing it, but I wonder where the results
> > are?
>
> Talking about it is the *philosophy* part of this newsgroup.
That was just the thought while reading this thread..
>
> Getting your hands dirty would be the newsgroup comp.ai
>
> Perhaps we are at the stage physics was before Einstein came
> along with his theory that would explain why the speed of light
> is measured the same for different inertial observers? We need
> an Einstein to rethink the way we think about the problem of
> what it means to "have a mind", or what it means to be "intelligent"?
>
> I have gotten my hands dirty but haven't been able to make my
> programs any smarter than the examples given in the books on
> AI that I have read.
>
> The reason people like talking about things instead of actually
> doing them is because talk is cheap and easy and doing things
> is hard and expensive in both money and time.
>
> The point I have made in other posts is that it is only when you
> come to actually code your ideas can you tell if you have said
> anything meaningful at all.
But aren't there more ways to achieve AI other than by coding software..and
letting machines run that software and do robotics?
In another thread I coined a new word (though it might nothing new I
confess) "AE", Artificial Evolution. That would open-up possibilities for
all kinds of experiments, from self-learning software-hardware and robotics,
to bio/chemical-neural-nanotech self-evolving "premordial soups" or any
other thinkable combinations.
>
> Philosophers merely pose the questions that can ultimately
> only be solved and verified by science.
And that's why scientists do a lot of philosophy before they put a new
theory to the test.
John Casey
"JPL Verhey" <p...@nospamwhatsoever.nu> wrote in message
news:40939f74$0$41758$5fc...@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl...
I meant "coding" in its broadest sense. In theory you can simulate
things on a PC of sufficient size and speed for any given task *if*
you really have an understanding of how it all works.
By expressing your theory as a program (which can be embodied in
hardware of some kind if you like) you can demonstrate that it works
and you have said something meaningful by running the program.
The computer allows us to test ideas that could not be done in a
practical way with paper and pen. Imagine if Gaston Julia had a
powerful computer to generate his fractals. It had to wait until
Mandelbrot and the modern computer to produce those stunning images.
Our current computers are not built for AI but are never the less
general purpose enough that, with software, we can try out some
ideas such as neural nets, artificial evolution and so on...
Exactly how it might all be implemented in the future is anyones
guess. But it will not be implemented at all if your theories are
so much fantasy, pie in the sky, wishful thinking.
--
John
JPL Verhey
I for one, don't dispute the usefulness of computers. But if a simulation
*of something else* is run on a computer, of say "the evolution of organic
life on earth", it remains just that - a simulation. Maybe that
(self-learning, intelligent) simulation generates new understanding of the
thing it simulates (in the same way a validated physics theory written on
the blackboard "simulates" correctly what it describes), but that doesn't
mean that the simulation itself has anything much in common what what it
simulates. Just as one can call an airplane "an artificial bird" because
both can fly, flying would nevertheless be the *only thing they have in
common.. among 20 zillion differences. The fantasy, the pie in the sky, the
wishful thinking is that by creating an airplane one believes to have almost
created a bird.. an "artificial bird".
The gravest mistake is to think that what is simulated "follows rules and
conditions" as built in the simulation. A similar mistake to saying "nature
follows the laws of physics", or "the moon calculates its orbit".
David Longley
Verhey <p...@nospamwhatsoever.nu> writes
That, it seems to me, is at least on the right track.
--
David Longley
Glen M. Sizemore
and conditions" as built in the simulation. A similar mistake to saying
"nature follows the laws of physics", or "the moon calculates its orbit".
GS: Did you think this up yourself, Junior Varsity?
"JPL Verhey" <p...@nospamwhatsoever.nu> wrote in message
news:4094cdcd$0$41753$5fc...@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl...
David Longley
Sizemore <gmsiz...@yahoo.com> writes
>JV: The gravest mistake is to think that what is simulated "follows rules
>and conditions" as built in the simulation. A similar mistake to saying
>"nature follows the laws of physics", or "the moon calculates its orbit".
>
>GS: Did you think this up yourself, Junior Varsity?
>
>
fear Glen. Who were those nitwits who said there was something wrong
with rote learning?
One can only speculate of course, but perhaps one day it will turn out
that some of those clever KGB strategists once hatched a dastardly
Soviet plot to subvert US education and society by enticing thousands to
the jungles of SE Asia to sample its fauna and flora. I guess it
wouldn't have helped that they'd have taken some of their R&R in Taiwan
either! (Have you ever read "The Behayour of Organs" by Yang Ye Wong?, I
can't recall the date but I think the publishers were Apples and
Sen-Shuri-Cloft Pless..
Thank God my parents didn't take out dual nationality for me when I was
18 <g>
--
David Longley
Lester Zick
<kjc...@hotkey.net.au> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
[. . .]
>I meant "coding" in its broadest sense. In theory you can simulate
>things on a PC of sufficient size and speed for any given task *if*
>you really have an understanding of how it all works.
According to what theory? Computationalism? That's not a theory, it's
speculation and it's an incorrect neo Pythagorean speculation at that.
[. . .]
Regards - Lester
Curt Welch
> I for one, don't dispute the usefulness of computers. But if a simulation
> *of something else* is run on a computer, of say "the evolution of
> organic life on earth", it remains just that - a simulation.
But how do you know that what the brain is doing is not already a
simultion?
If it is, that would explain why we could duplicate it with a computer and
end up with the same thing instead of a simulation of it.
I happen to know that it is a simulation and I happen to know that we can
duplicate the function of the brain using a computer because of that. We
are not simulating the brain, we are just running a different version of
the same simulation algorithm that the brain is running. The brain runs
the algorithm on a biological computer built with neurons, we run on an
electronic computer built with transistors.
--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
cu...@kcwc.com Webmaster for http://NewsReader.Com/
Gary Forbis
> "JPL Verhey" <p...@nospamwhatsoever.nu> wrote:
>
> > I for one, don't dispute the usefulness of computers. But if a simulation
> > *of something else* is run on a computer, of say "the evolution of
> > organic life on earth", it remains just that - a simulation.
>
> But how do you know that what the brain is doing is not already a
> simultion?
OK.
> If it is, that would explain why we could duplicate it with a computer and
> end up with the same thing instead of a simulation of it.
OK.
> I happen to know that it is a simulation and I happen to know that we can
> duplicate the function of the brain using a computer because of that.
I don't think the conclusion follows. I've accepted that the brain is
running a simualation for the purose of this argument. Will you accept
that the simuation is accomplished by way of the functioning of the brain?
Further will you accept that the whole brain is engaged in this activity?
As you have noted elsewhere, time is critical for what you call
"computatioal systems". This being so one needs to add something to
the argument since it is not known that a computer can execute the same
function as the brain in the same time frame.
And this says nothing of consciousness, which may be a lucky(?) side
effect of the particular implementation.
> We
> are not simulating the brain, we are just running a different version of
> the same simulation algorithm that the brain is running.
I doubt it. The mimimum computting power based upon current estimates
isn't available at reasonable costs yet.
> The brain runs
> the algorithm on a biological computer built with neurons, we run on an
> electronic computer built with transistors.
Hmm...
Do you doubt other parts of the wetware play a part in what the brain
does? I suspect all the hormones and even blood flow plays a part.
The brain is part of a system developed by way of variation and natural
selection. It isn't cast into a narrow design path.
Curt Welch
> cu...@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote in message
> news:<20040502121237.353$F...@newsreader.com>...
> > "JPL Verhey" <p...@nospamwhatsoever.nu> wrote:
> >
> > > I for one, don't dispute the usefulness of computers. But if a
> > > simulation *of something else* is run on a computer, of say "the
> > > evolution of organic life on earth", it remains just that - a
> > > simulation.
> >
> > But how do you know that what the brain is doing is not already a
> > simultion?
>
> OK.
>
> > If it is, that would explain why we could duplicate it with a computer
> > and end up with the same thing instead of a simulation of it.
>
> OK.
>
> > I happen to know that it is a simulation and I happen to know that we
> > can duplicate the function of the brain using a computer because of
> > that.
>
> I don't think the conclusion follows.
No, it doesn't. It's just a belief of mine based on large number of other
things. It's not something that can be proved. It's just a long time
working assumption of mine.
> I've accepted that the brain is
> running a simualation for the purose of this argument. Will you accept
> that the simuation is accomplished by way of the functioning of the
> brain?
I think you say that.
> Further will you accept that the whole brain is engaged in this
> activity?
No, it's not the whole brain. It's just the learning part of the brain.
> As you have noted elsewhere, time is critical for what you call
> "computatioal systems".
I've used the term computational system but I have no idea what it means.
I've used it in a very loose sense to try and focuse attention on the idea
the brain is not magical, that it's just a collection of parts under the
enfluence of the normal (as we already understand them) laws of nature.
i.e., it's just a machine.
But, the aspect of time is that the computations required to explain the
function of the machine must be done on time, or else it's far to hard to
understand what the machine is doing.
> This being so one needs to add something to
> the argument since it is not known that a computer can execute the same
> function as the brain in the same time frame.
I never said we knew for sure it could be done with one of our computers.
I've said many times that the scaling problems might force us to use a
completely different type of system to do it. For exampale, it's possible
that connections are formed in the brain based on electrical field
potentials. The direction of growth of new nervers might be enflunced by
the sum of all the electrical fields created as all the neurons fire. An
electrial field sumation problem for 10 billion neurons would be like
trying to figure out the orbits of 10 billion plants in a single system.
The computer simuation could do it, but the the scaling problems could me
that we would need more cpu power than all the worlds computers combined to
do the work at the same speed the brain does which.
So, we may have to build a clever analog machine which uses electrial
fields to answer the question in real time.
The point was not that our computers would be the way to do it, but that it
was just a machine acting under the laws of nature and that we too can
build and understand machines.
My latest network designes however look like they don't have the scaling
problems of my other approaches so maybe in the end, a standard
computer-like technology will do just fine.
> And this says nothing of consciousness, which may be a lucky(?) side
> effect of the particular implementation.
True. My logic above doesn't begin to prove building AI is possible. It
only removes one road block which people like to throw in the path of AI.
That being, "a simulation is never the real thing and all computer programs
are a simulation". If the brain is a simultion, then that road block falls
apart unless the peoson making the argument can prove the brain is not a
simulation in itself.
You can then substitute the idea that the brain is a better computer than
anything we have, like you did, but if you argue that point, you are
argruing our engineering skills and not our magic skills. And I think that
brings the AI problem back down to earth.
In truth, if people have a gut feeling that AI is impossible, there will be
an infinite number of false road-blocks they will be able to raise. This
is how the brain works. It's a normal defense mechanism. And if they have
a gut feeling that it is possible, they will be able to make up an
unlimited number of reasons to ignore all the road-blocks. Until we solve
AI, we have no way of knowing what we are arguing about. If it's possible
to solve, then the people that think it is impossible are not going to be
the ones that do it because they no better than to waste their time on it.
If it's possible to solve, it's the people that have the gut feeling it is
possible that are going to do it.
> > We
> > are not simulating the brain, we are just running a different version
> > of the same simulation algorithm that the brain is running.
>
> I doubt it. The mimimum computting power based upon current estimates
> isn't available at reasonable costs yet.
See, there you go putting up your road blocks as I remove them. "current
estimates" are BS because nobody knows what the brain is doing yet. Nobody
has a clue about what function of the brain is important for AI and what is
there just because that's what biology had to do to grow a computer.
It's just as reasonable to assume in the other direction that we could
perform the same function using 1 transistor per neuruon. There might for
example be a 20 neuron cluster that builds the basic processing node of the
learning brain which we could logically duplicate with 20 transistor. So
you get a 1 to 1 mapping from neurons to transistors. It's even possible
to agure that since transistor work so much faster than neurons, that we
might be able to time-share tranistors using a computer-like simulation of
the processes. So instead of builind all these "processing nodes" in
hardware, we simulate them in software. The probigation delay of neurons
are very slow compared to what we can do with transistors so this is not an
unfounded idea.
So, the 100 billion neurons of the brain might become a 1 billion
transistor problem. Processors are over 10 million transistors on a single
chip. SO you only need 100 of them to reach a 1 billion transistor network
with todays technology. If the facts bent in this direction, human level
AI would cost less than $100K with today's technology.
The truth is, we don't have AI solved yet, so we don't know what we will
find. But it you want to solve it, you have to follow the clues we do
have, and find answers to all the roadblocks. And if you don't see an
answer for a roadblock, just ignore it as long as you have stuff you can do
elsewhere.
> > The brain runs
> > the algorithm on a biological computer built with neurons, we run on an
> > electronic computer built with transistors.
>
> Hmm...
>
> Do you doubt other parts of the wetware play a part in what the brain
> does? I suspect all the hormones and even blood flow plays a part.
The brain is very much chemical based control system. The data it
processes is in the form of electrical pusles but a lot of the learning and
control of the processing nodes seem to be under control of chemical
channels.
People must remeber that anything built by evoltuion has to be grown, not
assembled. And because of this, all sorts of trivial engineering devices,
like screws, and wheels, are bascially off-limits to biology. You can't
grow a wheel and keep it connected to the food supply while it spins.
Tranistors work many times better than neurons because they don't have to
be "living" objects in the computer which have to be constantly "feed" to
keep them alive. Transistors are around 100 nanometers wide on a chip,
where as neurons are 10 to 100 microns - 100 to 1000 times larger.
The basic logic tool for bulding networks with is already over 100 times
smaller and faster then the basic tool biology was able to create. We
already have a huge techonolgy lead on biology in that regard. We just
don't understand how to put them together correctly yet to do the same
thing the brain is doing. But we will, soon, I'm quite sure. And when we
do figure out, there's now doubt, we will be able to go way past what
biology was able to to do.
> The brain is part of a system developed by way of variation and natural
> selection. It isn't cast into a narrow design path.
The heart still pumps blood. We can replace it with an external pump just
fine and the human keeps working. The heart is a very complex part of the
body which interacts in all sorts of complex ways with the brain and the
chemicals in the blood, but it can still be replaced with a mechanical
pump. The mechanical pumps we make are never as good as the orginal heart
in terms of how well it interacts with the rest of the body, but it does a
fine job of pumping blood.
The brain is very complex, but the logic behind how it creates intelligence
is going to turn out to be fairly simple, just like a bood pump is fairly
simple once you understand it at it's lowest level. Making an artifical
brain fit into the body and interface with the rest of the body would be
extermly hard to do. But if you just understand how it creates AI, then
building AI which doesn't have to interafce with all that wetware is
probably going to be trivial once we break the code and understand how it
does what it does.
Michael Olea
dh...@codelogicconsulting.com wrote on 4/24/04 10:55 PM:
> Just for fun, I thought we could vote on "kook credibility" or
> "kookability" of some of the more regular posters here.
> Low means "not kook" and high means "very kook". Here's
> a tenative list with my votes (in the order in which I happen
> to remember the names):
>
> David Longley: 6
> Glen Sizemore: 3
> Curt Welch: 3
> patty: 1
> Eray Ozkural: 1
> Ken Collins: 8
> Arthur T. Murray: 10
> Lester Zick: 4
> David Held: ? (go ahead and give me a 10 if you like ;)
> Neil Rickert: 1.5 (for not buying into Fredkinism ;> )
>
> These are just people whose posts I've actually read now
> and then, which is why I don't include other posters that are
> obviously prolific. Feel free to add names if you have an
> opinion.
>
> Dave
>
A couple of comments: 1) Anyone posting a response to this thread is at
least a little kooky. 2) My experience with people like Spaceman Joey,
Spaceman Bob, Streeter, Helmet Man, Protestants, and the good folk of this
forum suggests that the index ought to be not so much a scalar magnitude,
but more of a winding number.
Michael Olea
feedbac...@yahoo.com wrote on 5/7/04 12:46 PM:
> Michael Olea <ol...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:<BCBF3C7E.9483%ol...@sbcglobal.net>...
> From: David Longley (Da...@longley.demon.co.uk)
> Subject: Re: Similarities and Differences
> Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
> Date: 2004-05-06 10:33:09 PST
>
> .............
> There *isn't any* "AI" (at least not as you and most others seem to
> conceive of it!) Have you not even grasped that yet?
How goes the GA search for machine gaits? Are your spiders any less wobbly?
David Longley
<ol...@sbcglobal.net> writes
Nice one.
Like you, I enjoy the odd wobble now and then. Sadly, baring one or two
exceptions, most folk here are far too set in their folk psychological
ways to make the most of it. That seems to go for their mentors
too........sadly.
--
David Longley
Michael Olea
d...@oricomtech.com wrote on 5/8/04 2:49 PM:
> Michael Olea <ol...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:<BCC14385.9540%ol...@sbcglobal.net>...
>
>
> I assume you were asking regards the serious answer.
You assume correctly. In other news, I got a call late last night - got till
monday morning to whip up a C++ templatized ANN framelet - traditional
feedforward, scaled conjugate gradient affair. Fortunately I've done this
sort of thing before. The novelty is that the training happens on the fly,
in real-time. And it has to have a small footprint. If it could wait till
tuesday I would have agitated for an SVM, but it's gotta be monday...
Albert van der Horst
Everybody knows Church thesis is not a theory.
It is a working hypothesis, extremely well vindicated.
You have not the least indication that it might be incorrect.
>Regards - Lester
Groetjes Albert
--
Albert van der Horst,Oranjestr 8,3511 RA UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
One man-hour to invent,
One man-week to implement,
One lawyer-year to patent.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Just for fun, I thought we could vote on "kook credibility" or
> "kookability" of some of the more regular posters here.
> David Longley: 6
You mentioned his name, and so far, by MailGate's count, he's
wasted 15 postings responding; I think you can safely move him
up four levels.
xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG