Kook Index

16 views
Skip to first unread message

David B. Held

unread,
Apr 25, 2004, 1:55:44 AM4/25/04
to
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

---
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

unread,
Apr 25, 2004, 3:21:26 AM4/25/04
to

Yet this NG is still the dullest I've seen. 0 less kooks in this NG
as I am leaving.

George Bush

JPL Verhey

unread,
Apr 25, 2004, 6:26:38 AM4/25/04
to
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

"David B. Held" <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:c6fjt7$r3d$1...@news.astound.net...

ken

unread,
Apr 25, 2004, 8:40:22 AM4/25/04
to
"David B. Held" <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:c6fjt7$r3d$1...@news.astound.net...
> 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.

'sorry' -- no 'fish', here.

k. p. collins


John H.

unread,
Apr 25, 2004, 9:35:48 AM4/25/04
to
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.

"David B. Held" <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:c6fjt7$r3d$1...@news.astound.net...

Neil W Rickert

unread,
Apr 25, 2004, 10:31:50 AM4/25/04
to
"David B. Held" <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> writes:

>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

unread,
Apr 25, 2004, 12:00:51 PM4/25/04
to
"Neil W Rickert" <ricke...@cs.niu.edu> wrote in message
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

unread,
Apr 25, 2004, 12:52:43 PM4/25/04
to
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 00:55:44 -0500, "David B. Held"
<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

unread,
Apr 25, 2004, 12:52:44 PM4/25/04
to
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 12:26:38 +0200, "JPL Verhey"
<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

unread,
Apr 25, 2004, 12:52:44 PM4/25/04
to
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 23:35:48 +1000, "John H." <johnh@faraway.> in
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

unread,
Apr 25, 2004, 5:30:26 PM4/25/04
to
"David B. Held" <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> 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

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

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 4:46:10 AM4/26/04
to
"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. 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

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 4:40:15 AM4/26/04
to
"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

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

David B. Held

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 4:53:25 AM4/26/04
to
"Neil W Rickert" <ricke...@cs.niu.edu> wrote in message
news:c6gi4m$h6b$1...@usenet.cso.niu.edu...
> [...]

> >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

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 6:56:51 AM4/26/04
to
In article <c6ii8a$fj2$1...@news.astound.net>, David B. Held
<dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> writes
Here we see you up to your "redneck" ignorant political games again. Do
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

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 8:22:08 AM4/26/04
to
In article <c6iht7$fin$1...@news.astound.net>, David B. Held
<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

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 8:43:07 AM4/26/04
to
"David B. Held" <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> writes:
>"Neil W Rickert" <ricke...@cs.niu.edu> wrote in message
>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

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 9:32:48 AM4/26/04
to
In article <c6j04r$fir$1...@usenet.cso.niu.edu>, Neil W Rickert
<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

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 12:01:09 PM4/26/04
to
"David B. Held" wrote on Mon, 26 Apr 2004:
>
>> 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://dev.null.org/psychoceramics/archives/1998.05/msg00018.html
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

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 11:29:59 AM4/26/04
to
"David B. Held" <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote in message
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

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 12:19:43 PM4/26/04
to
uj...@victoria.tc.ca (Arthur T. Murray) writes:

>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

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 1:30:05 PM4/26/04
to
"Arthur T. Murray" <uj...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
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

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 1:27:01 PM4/26/04
to
"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.

David Longley

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 1:51:53 PM4/26/04
to
In article <c6jgot$kdq$1...@news.astound.net>, David B. Held
<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

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 3:51:45 PM4/26/04
to
"David B. Held" <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote in message news:<c6fjt7$r3d$1...@news.astound.net>...

> 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

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 3:32:43 PM4/26/04
to
"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 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

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 4:02:31 PM4/26/04
to

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

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 4:02:51 PM4/26/04
to
"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.

> 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

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 4:05:15 PM4/26/04
to
"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.

Michael Olea

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 4:24:42 PM4/26/04
to
in article rVdjc.42857$aQ6.2568771@attbi_s51, patty at
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

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 4:59:24 PM4/26/04
to
On 26 Apr 2004 12:51:45 -0700, er...@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural
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

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 5:09:24 PM4/26/04
to

"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

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 5:07:03 PM4/26/04
to
In article <c6jq1j$n8r$1...@news.astound.net>, David B. Held
<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.

unread,
Apr 26, 2004, 9:47:08 PM4/26/04
to

"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

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 12:42:22 AM4/27/04
to
> 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

New world order is Bush's perestroyka. Forced freedom is like a
machine. Bush is a machine.

qw6

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 12:54:57 AM4/27/04
to
"David B. Held" wrote:
>
> "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

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 2:43:57 AM4/27/04
to

Compai philosophy. Qwoo qwoo, chin cho wai chi.

David B. Held

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 2:33:15 AM4/27/04
to
"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.

> [...]


> 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

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 4:51:09 AM4/27/04
to
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. 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

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 6:27:17 AM4/27/04
to

"David Longley" <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Krt5V8I9...@longley.demon.co.uk...

> 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

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 7:00:12 AM4/27/04
to
In article <408e3559$0$41754$5fc...@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl>, JPL
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

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 7:42:09 AM4/27/04
to

"David Longley" <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:v49ARUO8...@longley.demon.co.uk...

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

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 8:39:27 AM4/27/04
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 9:08:59 AM4/27/04
to
"David B. Held" <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote in message news:<c6jpt2$n4k$1...@news.astound.net>...

> "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

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 10:28:22 AM4/27/04
to
"David B. Held" <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote in message news:<c6fjt7$r3d$1...@news.astound.net>...
> 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

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 11:00:28 AM4/27/04
to
Michael Olea <ol...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<BCB2BE1D.9214%ol...@sbcglobal.net>...

>
> 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

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 11:22:21 AM4/27/04
to
On 27 Apr 2004 07:28:22 -0700, okams...@yahoo.com (bob) in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

Cute. I like it.

Regards - Lester

ken

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 12:27:21 PM4/27/04
to
"David B. Held" <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:c6jq1j$n8r$1...@news.astound.net...

> "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

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 4:34:03 PM4/27/04
to
DH: ..."primitive mentalistic rhetoric"...that's another for the "Longley

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

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 5:11:12 PM4/27/04
to

"David B. Held" <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:c6jpt2$n4k$1...@news.astound.net...

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++

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 6:21:08 PM4/27/04
to
I name myself after a computer language and dont even get included :-(

David Longley

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 6:26:42 PM4/27/04
to
In article <408ec...@news.iprimus.com.au>, John Casey
<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

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 10:12:37 PM4/27/04
to
Anyone who has posted to this thread, or started a variant of it,
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

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 3:09:20 AM4/28/04
to
"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!

David B. Held

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 3:32:05 AM4/28/04
to
"Eray Ozkural exa" <er...@bilkent.edu.tr> wrote in message
news:fa69ae35.04042...@posting.google.com...
> [...]
> 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.

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

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 6:11:56 AM4/28/04
to

"David Longley" <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8cKEopni...@longley.demon.co.uk...

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

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 6:18:36 AM4/28/04
to
David B. Held wrote:

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

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 6:27:43 AM4/28/04
to
JC: If you say so David. But in practice people seem to have managed

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

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 6:33:49 AM4/28/04
to
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?

"David B. Held" <dh...@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote in message

news:c6nlam$rtv$1...@news.astound.net...

David Longley

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 7:51:40 AM4/28/04
to
In article <2dfb71eac42ba2c8...@news.teranews.com>, Glen M.
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

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 8:14:37 AM4/28/04