Mentifex claims most sophisticated piece of software ever written.

[menti...@gmail.com]

Hacker News raises the issue at

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17085325

which leads to the question at

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-sophisticated-piece-of-software-code-ever-written

for which Mentifex submits the following response:

For twenty-five years (since July of 1993) Yours Truly Mentifex here has been coding an AI Mind, first in REXX on the Commodore Amiga, then in Forth on a computer from FreePC.com (they gave away 40,000 free Windows 98 machines), then in JavaScript for Microsoft Internet Explorer (MSIE), and more recently in Perl. I hereby claim that the artificial Mind at

http://ai.neocities.org/MsIeAi.html

is a serious contender for “the most sophisticated software” because the AI Mind can think and reason with concepts in natural language. As of three days ago, you can ask the AI “what do you think” and it will tell you. Respectfully submitted,

Arthur T. Murray, “Mentifex”.

[gnuarm.del...@gmail.com]

Well, don't keep us in suspense... what did it say it was thinking?

Rick C.

[menti...@gmail.com]

AI Mind version 13may18C on Wed May 16 04:38:07 PDT 2018
Robot: I HELP KIDS
Human: what do you think of kids

Robot: I THINK THAT KIDS I THINK
Human:

Robot: I AM A ROBOTS
Human:

Robot: I AM AN ANDRU
Human:

Robot: I HELP KIDS
Human:

Robot: I HELP KIDS
Human:

Robot: I THINK
Human: what do you think po

Robot: WHAT IS PO
Human:

Robot: I AM A PERSON
Human:

Robot: I THINK
Human: what do you think of robots

Robot: WHAT IS NK
Human:

Robot: I THINK
Human:

Robot: I AM A ROBOTS
Human:

Robot: I AM A ROBOTS
Human: what do you think

Robot: I THINK THAT I AM AN ANDRU
Human:

Robot: I HELP KIDS
Human:

Robot: I AM AN ANDRU
Human:

Robot: I HELP KIDS
Human: what do robots think

Robot: I THINK I AM A ROBOTS
Human:

Robot: ROBOTS NEED ME
Human:

Robot: I HELP KIDS
Human:

Robot: I AM AN ANDRU
Human: what does andru think

Robot: I AM A PERSON
Human:

Robot: I AM A ROBOTS
Human:

Robot: I HELP KIDS
Human:

Robot: I AM AN ANDRU
Human:

Robot: I AM A PERSON
Human: what do you think of robots

Robot: I THINK THAT ROBOTS I THINK
Human:

Robot: I AM A ROBOTS
Human:

Robot: I HELP KIDS
Human:

Robot: I AM AN ANDRU
Human:

Robot: I AM A PERSON
Human:

[gnuarm.del...@gmail.com]

Really? This is the result of “the most sophisticated software”? Is it available online so I could converse with it?

Rick C.

[menti...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 3:34:44 PM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> Is it available online so I could converse with it?
>
> Rick C.

http://ai.neocities.org/AiMind.html -- is the English version.

http://ai.neocities.org/Dushka.html -- obsolete Russian version.

Both require Microsoft Internet Explorer (MSIE) to think.

Thanx for taking a look.

Arthur M.

[Ron Aaron]

On 17/05/2018 0:44, menti...@gmail.com wrote:

> Robot: I AM A ROBOTS
> Human:
>
> Robot: I AM AN ANDRU
> Human:
>
> Robot: I HELP KIDS
> Human:
>

Sounds like it's off its meds...

[foxaudio...@gmail.com]

It also bears a resemblance to the kind of responses chimps give on a bliss board.
Lots of replies but none showing mastery of language.

Compare Mentiflex to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd1mEm2Fy08


B

[Albert van der Horst]

In article <e2361df2-255e-481a...@googlegroups.com>,

<foxaudio...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 11:51:54 PM UTC-4, Ron Aaron wrote:
>> On 17/05/2018 0:44, menti...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Robot: I AM A ROBOTS
>> > Human:
>> >
>> > Robot: I AM AN ANDRU
>> > Human:
>> >
>> > Robot: I HELP KIDS
>> > Human:
>> >
>>
>> Sounds like it's off its meds...
>
>It also bears a resemblance to the kind of responses chimps give on a bliss board.
>Lots of replies but none showing mastery of language.

I don't think so. chimps show a rudimentary capability to express
real thoughts by language.
The mentifex program is far removed from anything ressembling thoughts,
let alone expressing them.

>
>Compare Mentiflex to this:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd1mEm2Fy08
>

>
>B
>

--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[foxaudio...@gmail.com]

Point taken.

[menti...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 7:57:37 AM UTC-7, Albert van der Horst wrote:

> The mentifex program is far removed from

> anything resembling thoughts, let alone expressing them.
>
[...]

> --
> Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
> Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
> albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

The Mentifex AI Minds in Forth, Perl and JavaScript
are able to think in English or German or Russian.
They also engage in automated reasoning by logical inference.

http://ai.neocities.org/AiMind.html when viewed with MSIE
will show inference if you type in a known name, such as Andru, and you write "andru is a woman". The AI for Interent Explorer will respond with something like
"DOES ANDRU HAVE A CHILD" based on the prior knowledge
that sometimes women have a child.

The AI Minds in Perl and JavaScript, but not yet in Forth,
are able to answer various queries based on "who" or "what".

The JavaScript AI (and eventually the Forth AI and the Perl AI) has recently become able to answer queries in the format of "what (does a) subject think" with a compound response in the format such as "I THINK THAT I AM A PERSON". Such behavior is true thinking and is extremely sophisticated, like a brain.

Arthur
--
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=307824.307853 = Mind.Forth
http://cyborg.blogspot.com/search/label/Forth
http://lj.rossia.org/users/sadkov/111836.html
http://github.com/PriorArt/AGI/wiki/MindGrid

[gnuarm.del...@gmail.com]

I tried it again and I could not get adequate responsiveness from it. About every third line it prints is "I am a robots" or "I am a person" or "I am a Andru". The rest appear to be relatively random. Worse, the UI is abysmal, requiring typing in at the top of the screen and reading the result at the bottom, constantly scrolling between the two. Why is the UI that way?

Rick C.

[Rod Pemberton]

On Fri, 18 May 2018 09:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
foxaudio...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 10:57:37 AM UTC-4, Albert van der Horst
> wrote:
> > In article <e2361df2-255e-481a...@googlegroups.com>,
> > <foxaudio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 11:51:54 PM UTC-4, Ron Aaron wrote:
> > >> On 17/05/2018 0:44, menti...@gmail.com wrote:

> > >> > Robot: I AM A ROBOTS
> > >> > Human:
> > >> >
> > >> > Robot: I AM AN ANDRU
> > >> > Human:
> > >> >
> > >> > Robot: I HELP KIDS
> > >> > Human:
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Sounds like it's off its meds...
> > >
> > >It also bears a resemblance to the kind of responses chimps give
> > >on a bliss board. Lots of replies but none showing mastery of
> > >language.
> >
> > I don't think so. chimps show a rudimentary capability to express
> > real thoughts by language.
> > The mentifex program is far removed from anything ressembling
> > thoughts, let alone expressing them.
> >
> > >
> > >Compare Mentiflex to this:
> > >
> > >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd1mEm2Fy08
> > >
> >
>

> Point taken.

Are you guys sure that you aren't being trolled by a well known
Internet kook? ...

"The Arthur T. Murray/Mentifex FAQ"
http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex_faq.html

Mentifex quick summary
https://everything2.com/title/Mentifex

his books ...
https://www.amazon.com/Arthur-T.-Murray/e/B004OKWAM8


Rod Pemberton
--
I believe in the right to life. That's why I oppose gun control.

[menti...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 4:20:11 PM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 9:35:32 PM UTC-4, menti...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 3:34:44 PM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Is it available online so I could converse with it?
> > >
> > > Rick C.
> >
> > http://ai.neocities.org/AiMind.html -- is the English version.
> >
> > http://ai.neocities.org/Dushka.html -- obsolete Russian version.
> >
> > Both require Microsoft Internet Explorer (MSIE) to think.
> >
> > Thanx for taking a look.
>
> I tried it again and I could not get adequate responsiveness from it.

You really do need to use Microsoft Internet Explorer with the AI Mind.

> About every third line it prints is "I am a robots" or "I am a person"
> or "I am a Andru". The rest appear to be relatively random.

But when you a message with MSIE, the AI responds to your input.

> Worse, the UI is abysmal, requiring typing in at the top of the screen
> and reading the result at the bottom, constantly scrolling between the two.

Right now the JavaScript AI loads up in Transcript mode,
which make it look as though the output is at the bottom.
In truth, however, the output is supposed to show up in a
gray band directly above where you enter your input.
If you click the checkbox for "Tutorial" mode, you should see the output above your input.

> Why is the UI that way?

The User Interface (UI) is designed so that the user may
see each output of the AI Mind and then enter an input
directly below the most recent thought of the AI.

Netizens are invited to host the JavaScript AI on their own
business or personal website, and to change the various links
above the Control Panel to whatever links they would like to show.

Thanks again for trying it out.

Arthur
--
http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-sophisticated-piece-of-software-code-ever-written/answer/A-T-Murray
http://cyborg.blogspot.com/search/label/MindForth
http://ai.neocities.org/mentifex_faq.html
http://ai.neocities.org/mindforth.txt

[Albert van der Horst]

In article <cb5b712d-f9e3-484f...@googlegroups.com>,

<menti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 7:57:37 AM UTC-7, Albert van der Horst wrote:
>

>> The mentifex program is far removed from=20

>> anything resembling thoughts, let alone expressing them.

>>=20
>[...]
>> --=20

>> Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
>> Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.

>> albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=3Dn http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
>
>The Mentifex AI Minds in Forth, Perl and JavaScript=20
>are able to think in English or German or Russian.=20
>They also engage in automated reasoning by logical inference.=20
>
>http://ai.neocities.org/AiMind.html when viewed with MSIE=20
>will show inference if you type in a known name, such as Andru, and you wri=
>te "andru is a woman". The AI for Interent Explorer will respond with somet=
>hing like=20
>"DOES ANDRU HAVE A CHILD" based on the prior knowledge=20
>that sometimes women have a child.=20
>
>The AI Minds in Perl and JavaScript, but not yet in Forth,=20
>are able to answer various queries based on "who" or "what".=20
>
>The JavaScript AI (and eventually the Forth AI and the Perl AI) has recentl=
>y become able to answer queries in the format of "what (does a) subject thi=
>nk" with a compound response in the format such as "I THINK THAT I AM A PER=
>SON". Such behavior is true thinking and is extremely sophisticated, like a=
> brain.

LOL

>
>Arthur

Groetjes Albert

[gnuarm.del...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 12:38:36 AM UTC-4, menti...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 4:20:11 PM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 9:35:32 PM UTC-4, menti...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 3:34:44 PM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Is it available online so I could converse with it?
> > > >
> > > > Rick C.
> > >
> > > http://ai.neocities.org/AiMind.html -- is the English version.
> > >
> > > http://ai.neocities.org/Dushka.html -- obsolete Russian version.
> > >
> > > Both require Microsoft Internet Explorer (MSIE) to think.
> > >
> > > Thanx for taking a look.
> >
> > I tried it again and I could not get adequate responsiveness from it.
> You really do need to use Microsoft Internet Explorer with the AI Mind.

Yes, I can read instructions and I used IE.

> > About every third line it prints is "I am a robots" or "I am a person"
> > or "I am a Andru". The rest appear to be relatively random.
> But when you a message with MSIE, the AI responds to your input.
>
> > Worse, the UI is abysmal, requiring typing in at the top of the screen
> > and reading the result at the bottom, constantly scrolling between the two.
> Right now the JavaScript AI loads up in Transcript mode,
> which make it look as though the output is at the bottom.
> In truth, however, the output is supposed to show up in a
> gray band directly above where you enter your input.

Yes, I could see it there, but the durn thing likes to babble so the response to my question would take a while, then several lines might come out. The UI needs to be fixed so the entry is at the bottom and the text scrolls upward off the screen like any normal terminal.

> If you click the checkbox for "Tutorial" mode, you should see the output above your input.
>
> > Why is the UI that way?
> The User Interface (UI) is designed so that the user may
> see each output of the AI Mind and then enter an input
> directly below the most recent thought of the AI.

Which keeps changing faster than I can reply, but like the weather, if you don't like the last reply, give it a few seconds and it will cycle around to another one you've already seen.

> Netizens are invited to host the JavaScript AI on their own
> business or personal website, and to change the various links
> above the Control Panel to whatever links they would like to show.

I haven't seen anything out of it that would make me want to ever use it again.

Rick C.

[hughag...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 5:30:22 PM UTC-7, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> Are you guys sure that you aren't being trolled by a well known
> Internet kook? ...
>
> "The Arthur T. Murray/Mentifex FAQ"

> http://www...

Rod Pemberton is a stalker --- this is a stalker website that provides Arthur T. Murray's home address with the idea that people will go there and do him harm.

Rod Pemberton has a long history of trying to figure out what people's home addresses are, and then posting this information on comp.lang.forth.
For a long time he thought that I lived in California and was caring for a sick uncle --- most likely he just found some luckless devil with the same name.
Rod once posted a satellite photo of some guy's house (turned out to be the guy's parents' house).

This is not the first time that Rod has posted that link that provided Arthur's home address --- I complained about it last time too --- the post got deleted.

As for Arthur, I would help him with his code if I had some inkling of what he was trying to do. This has been said already:

On Friday, October 22, 2010 at 2:20:34 PM UTC-7, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> What I said was:
>
> On Oct 21, 5:22 pm, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I just don't understand what you are doing. What does "think"
> > mean? I still don't have any inkling of what the purpose of the
> > program is.
>
> And what Elizabeth Rather says is:
>
> On Oct 21, 6:12 pm, Elizabeth D Rather <erat...@forth.com> wrote:
> > This is exciting. Hugh and Arthur could make a great team.
>
> How are we going to make a "great team" if I don't have any inkling of
> what he is doing?
>
> I think Elizabeth Rather hates Arthur, and she hates me, so she is
> hoping to lump us together somehow --- kill two birds with one stone.

Jeff Fox told me that he met Elizabeth Rather at the funeral of Charles Moore's wife.
The only thing Elizabeth Rather could talk about was how much she hated Arthur T. Murray --- somewhat of a weird thing to talk about at a funeral.
Arthur has never harmed her though --- most likely, he has never harmed anybody --- he seems to be a gentle soul.
Apparently, she thinks that he is harming Forth's reputation, and this indirectly harms Forth Inc.'s sales.
It is not really true that somebody writing code in a language harms that language.
The ANS-Forth cult however, believes they are obliged to stop non-members from writing Forth code because they own Forth:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.forth/lc53%7Csort:relevance/comp.lang.forth/qqlp1gZnVic/kjeAwWCaR1MJ

On Saturday, November 23, 2013 at 9:25:28 AM UTC-7, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In the wikipedia entry about Linear congruential generators there
> is an entry with a Forth implementation : LC53.
>
> There is no theoretical motivation or test results behind it,
> except a statement of Hugh Aguilar:
> " invented it".
> and
> "
> \ PRNG is not suitable for encryption; it is intended to be used in games and simulations.
> "
>
> It has nothing to offer over the first generator mentioned (from
> Numerical Recipees) : less trusted source, slower implementation,
> smaller period. It has with a high probability, never been used in
> a program with some notoriety.
>
> This may be a very poor generator, and it may reflect poorly on the
> reputation of the Forth community. It may give a wrong impression about
> the standing of Hugh's novice package in the Forth community.
>
> I ask Hugh to remove the LC53 from the wikipedia entry...

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sat, 19 May 2018 21:05:36 -0700 (PDT)
hughag...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 5:30:22 PM UTC-7, Rod Pemberton wrote:

> > Are you guys sure that you aren't being trolled by a well known
> > Internet kook? ...
> >
> > "The Arthur T. Murray/Mentifex FAQ"
> > http://www...
>

<OT>
<Yet another off-topic rant by Hugh ... Does he ever give up?>

> Rod Pemberton is a stalker ---

Lie.

a) I've never stalked anyone. I respect boundaries. Besides, no one
is deserving of me stalking them, except maybe one person. I've since
learned that person actually stalked me.
b) You can't stalk someone when you're many thousands of miles away.
It's not physically possible.
c) There is a legal difference between stalking or hunting, and tracking
or tracing or investigative following, etc.

> Rod Pemberton is a stalker ---

Hugh Aguilar is an angry abusive homophobic troll who intentionally
distorts the truth a lot because he's miserable and lonely without his
former "lover" J.P. around ... Please, come out of the closet Hugh.
You're causing us too much grief by pretending to not be gay. You do
know that J.P. has a website where you can contact him directly, don't
you? Why do you think he set it up if not for you? Now, go kiss and
make up, lover boy. We can see that your heart longs for him.

> this is a stalker website that provides Arthur T. Murray's home
> address with the idea that people will go there and do him harm.

Lie.

"[Murray] has given various mailing addresses from time to time."
"These addresses have not been confirmed by the author of this FAQ."

> Rod Pemberton has a long history of trying to figure out what
> people's home addresses are, and then posting this information on
> comp.lang.forth.

Lie.

I do sometimes warn people that they are using a news server that
doesn't obfuscate their IP address.

> For a long time he thought that I lived in California and was caring
> for a sick uncle --- most likely he just found some luckless devil
> with the same name.

Lie.

I never thought you lived in California.

> Rod once posted a satellite photo of some guy's house (turned out to
> be the guy's parents' house).

Lie.

I never posted a satellite photo, or a link to one. I mentioned that I
_looked_ at a satellite photo via Google Maps, as millions of people do
every single day. So, get your facts straight.

From what I recall, the new guy aggressively attacked me for no
apparent reason, much like Bernd Paysan and John Passaniti once did.
Good riddance to all of them. They made this place very miserable,
much like you still do. Alex McDonald became bitter, angry, left, and
came back. Now, he has me filtered, supposedly. Why? Who cares. He
hasn't contributed in decades, like you. He's just here to argue with
Anton, because he likes arguing, like you. He said he filtered Gavino
and J.P. too. Sorry gav, Alex hates you. He should've filtered you as
well, but you can't cure crazy. Alex doesn't respond to you, so
why would he want to read what you post? ... This time around, he has
been far more respectful, i.e., muted Alex, when others here say he is
being hostile, or a nuisance, but he's still a bit of a prick initially
to new people.


BTW, why are /YOU/ still here Hugh? No one here is helping you
accomplish anything, at least not in the last decade or so. You make
everyone you converse with angry with your incessant personal attacks.
Everyone disagrees with what you have say about Forth. No one believes
your novice package is of any value. You haven't completed your Forth
interpreter in over a decade, apparently. It seems that you can't live
without J.P.'s excessive and abusive hostility, so you intentionally
stir up some of your own. Apparently, you're still itching to express
your pent-up homophobia, but no one who is still here is bending over
for it.

> This is not the first time that Rod has posted that link that
> provided Arthur's home address

Lie.

Google Groups shows the link was posted in the past by John Passiniti
(twice), Coos Haak, Grant Wagner, and John Peters. Is your poor memory
confusing me with J.P. now? Prick! ...

> --- I complained about it last time
> too --- the post got deleted.

Lie.

Google Groups shows no replies by you to such links, nor any posts by
you in the corresponding threads.

If you meant that my post was deleted, I don't delete. Maybe, it was a
forgery. Oddly, there have been a few of them over the years to
various groups. Usenet doesn't allow deletions, but Google Groups may.

If you meant that your post was deleted, how did that happen, without
you doing it? ... If it was to Google Groups, maybe you were censored
for offensive language?

> As for Arthur, I would help him with his code if I had some inkling
> of what he was trying to do.

Why would you waste your life on such irrelevant shit? He simply can't
invest sufficient man-hours to outperform Google's AI. He's obsolete.
Dustbin-ed.

> This has been said already:
>

> [bizarre]

Why do you take things so personally?
Why are you so incessantly angry at others here?
Why are you so paranoid of others?
What type of drugs are you on?

I have to ask, because you rant like this in periodic cycles,
especially near weekends, similar to Alex.

[gnuarm.del...@gmail.com]

No one cares about "non-members" writing code. The problem is wacko people talking like they are authorities in all things Forth and making the Forth community look like them. There are few enough members of the Forth community that even a small number of wackos stand out. I only count two, but they are enough to cause harm.

Rick C.

[menti...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 1:15:32 AM UTC-7, Rod Pemberton wrote: [...]
> Why would you waste your life on such irrelevant sh*t?

> He simply can't invest sufficient man-hours to outperform Google's AI.

http://medium.com/p/d5af0e850984 -- Mentifex on Concepts

Chatbots, starting with Eliza many years ago, have a tendency not really to think but rather to anticipate expected inputs and to trot out canned responses to answer the inputs. More modern chatbots will find voluminous information for a user and speak the information out loud without even understanding what is being said. An AI Mind, however, builds up a concept for every English word that the AI knows and uses. Mentifex-class AI Minds in Forth or Perl or JavaScript have an OldConcept module for concepts already known and a NewConcept module for learning any new word and conceptualizing it.

http://old.reddit.com/r/Chatbots/comments/8kmn0x/chatbot_intro_to_ai/dza4n2u

> He's obsolete. Dustbin-ed.

[hughag...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:52:43 AM UTC-7, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In article <cb5b712d-f9e3-484f...@googlegroups.com>,
> <menti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The AI Minds in Perl and JavaScript, but not yet in Forth,=20
> >are able to answer various queries based on "who" or "what".=20
> >
> >The JavaScript AI (and eventually the Forth AI and the Perl AI) has recentl=
> >y become able to answer queries in the format of "what (does a) subject thi=
> >nk" with a compound response in the format such as "I THINK THAT I AM A PER=
> >SON". Such behavior is true thinking and is extremely sophisticated, like a=
> > brain.
>
> LOL

Albert van der Horst recently posted the "canonical" merge-sort:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.forth/canonical%7Csort:date/comp.lang.forth/9CThNEkqLrw/OfDqAhDQBgAJ
My understanding of the word "canonical" is that he believes he knows everything there is to know about the subject.
Apparently he climbed Mt. Sinai and received his merge-sort source-code written on stone tablets by the finger of God.
So Albert, did you get your merge-sort into FFL? You said it was suitable for a library.

Anyway, getting back to Arthur and his AI, the problem I see is that his AI doesn't have a clear goal.
You can't say that to think is the goal. To think about what?
Intelligence (artificial or natural) is only meaningful in the context of some goal --- intelligent decisions move you closer to that goal.

I originally thought that Arthur had written an expert-system.
That would be a worthwhile goal --- a system that could answer questions about some particular subject --- best would be a useful subject.

[Albert van der Horst]

In article <9374c4f4-036f-42ea...@googlegroups.com>,

<hughag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:52:43 AM UTC-7, Albert van der Horst wrote:
>> In article <cb5b712d-f9e3-484f...@googlegroups.com>,
>> <menti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >The AI Minds in Perl and JavaScript, but not yet in Forth,=20
>> >are able to answer various queries based on "who" or "what".=20
>> >
>> >The JavaScript AI (and eventually the Forth AI and the Perl AI) has recentl=
>> >y become able to answer queries in the format of "what (does a) subject thi=
>> >nk" with a compound response in the format such as "I THINK THAT I AM A PER=
>> >SON". Such behavior is true thinking and is extremely sophisticated, like a=
>> > brain.
>>
>> LOL
>
>Albert van der Horst recently posted the "canonical" merge-sort:
>https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.forth/canonical%7Csort:date/comp.lang.forth/9CThNEkqLrw/OfDqAhDQBgAJ
>My understanding of the word "canonical" is that he believes he knows everything there is to know about the subject.
>Apparently he climbed Mt. Sinai and received his merge-sort source-code written on stone tablets by the finger of God.
>So Albert, did you get your merge-sort into FFL? You said it was suitable for a library.

Everything? 1]
If you agree this MERGE-SORT is canonical you can add it yourself to the
ffl.

Or you could accept my challenge:
add your random generator to the ffl, then I will add MERGE-SORT.

On top of that because ffl is notable in the wikipedia sense,
I could make good on my promise to refer to it from the wikipedia
random number page. It is an example of an implementation of an
algorithm in Knuth's TAO, notable beyond doubt.
(I owe you that, but then I expect a truce.)

>
>Anyway, getting back to Arthur and his AI, the problem I see is that his AI doesn't have a clear goal.
>You can't say that to think is the goal. To think about what?
>Intelligence (artificial or natural) is only meaningful in the context of some goal --- intelligent decisions move you closer to that goal.

Wise words. I know you are a better programmer than he is (yes,
seriously). If you will have contributed to ffl, you will have finally
set you apart from cooks like Arthur Mendifex.

Groetjes Albert

1]
W.r.t. to everything I will cite Daan Zonderland:
"
'Ik zal het morgen aan de meester vragen, die weet alles.'
...
'De meester weet veel, want hij is een goed mens. Maar alles
weet hij niet ...'

[hughag...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 7:27:37 AM UTC-7, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In article <9374c4f4-036f-42ea...@googlegroups.com>,
> <hughag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:52:43 AM UTC-7, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> >> In article <cb5b712d-f9e3-484f...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> <menti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >The AI Minds in Perl and JavaScript, but not yet in Forth,=20
> >> >are able to answer various queries based on "who" or "what".=20
> >> >
> >> >The JavaScript AI (and eventually the Forth AI and the Perl AI) has recentl=
> >> >y become able to answer queries in the format of "what (does a) subject thi=
> >> >nk" with a compound response in the format such as "I THINK THAT I AM A PER=
> >> >SON". Such behavior is true thinking and is extremely sophisticated, like a=
> >> > brain.
> >>
> >> LOL
> >
> >Albert van der Horst recently posted the "canonical" merge-sort:
> >https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.forth/canonical%7Csort:date/comp.lang.forth/9CThNEkqLrw/OfDqAhDQBgAJ
> >My understanding of the word "canonical" is that he believes he knows everything there is to know about the subject.
> >Apparently he climbed Mt. Sinai and received his merge-sort source-code written on stone tablets by the finger of God.
> >So Albert, did you get your merge-sort into FFL? You said it was suitable for a library.
>
> Everything? 1]
> If you agree this MERGE-SORT is canonical you can add it yourself to the
> ffl.

You have somehow contrived to believe that I am agreeing that your MERGE-SORT is cononical??? LOL
I have written my own merge-sort --- I tried several variations --- I settled on one that is a good balance between speed and memory-usage.
I glanced over your code --- it was very simplistic --- not useful.

I only brought up the fact that you claimed that your MERGE-SORT is "canonical" because you were laughing at Arthur, trying to hurt his feelings.
I pointed out your low-quality MERGE-SORT to show that you don't know much about Forth programming either --- possibly less than Arthur does.

> Or you could accept my challenge:
> add your random generator to the ffl, then I will add MERGE-SORT.
>
> On top of that because ffl is notable in the wikipedia sense,
> I could make good on my promise to refer to it from the wikipedia
> random number page. It is an example of an implementation of an
> algorithm in Knuth's TAO, notable beyond doubt.
> (I owe you that, but then I expect a truce.)

Getting code in FFL only proves that the "programmer" is willing to kiss Stephen Pelc's ass --- the code in FFL is very low-quality ---
I don't want my code to be in FFL because guilt-by-association will imply that my code is low-quality too.

Also, I have said repeatedly that I don't want to be mentioned in Wikipedia. I deleted all references to my code in Wikipedia (by myself and others).
A person getting mentioned in Wikipedia only proves that the person is willing to kiss the Wikipedia editors' asses.
All of those Wikipedia editors get a thrill out of being in a position of authority in which they can denounce people's accomplishments as crap and
delete the Wikipedia reference --- they want people who have accomplishments to kiss their ass --- only then will they deign to acknowledge the person.
You are a typical Wikipedia editor.

> >Anyway, getting back to Arthur and his AI, the problem I see is that his AI doesn't have a clear goal.
> >You can't say that to think is the goal. To think about what?
> >Intelligence (artificial or natural) is only meaningful in the context of some goal --- intelligent decisions move you closer to that goal.
>
> Wise words. I know you are a better programmer than he is (yes,
> seriously). If you will have contributed to ffl, you will have finally
> set you apart from cooks like Arthur Mendifex.

So, if I get into FFL (by kissing Stephen Pelc's ass), I will have finally set myself apart from kooks like Arthur? I will have risen to your level? Gosh!

Albert van der Horst, you are one arrogant jackass! LOL
Arthur T. Murray may not know a lot about programming, but he is a much nicer person than you are.
Arthur's claim of having written the "most sophisticated" software ever is a pretty big boast ---
he is not directly putting down other people though, which you do routinely.

I doubt I could help Arthur very much anyway. Expert systems are written in Prolog --- I don't really know anything about Prolog, fascinating as it may be.
Also, expert systems were a big deal in the 1990s, but then they fizzled out --- I have read that none of the expert systems were very useful ---
other branches of AI proved to be more useful.

I wrote a program on the Apple-IIc in 1989/1990 that could find derivatives and simplify equations.
That was artificial-intelligence assuming that first-year calculus requires natural-intelligence.
My program was not useful. It was not doing anything that any first-year calculus student was not able to do with pencil-and-paper.
If a student wasn't able to find derivatives with pencil-and-paper, the reason was that the student didn't understand the subject ---
my program wasn't useful to the student --- the student just had to reread the textbook to catch up to the other students.
A lot of AI is like this --- significant programming is involved --- the end result doesn't compare very well to the natural-intelligence of the user.

[lehs]

Spirits thinks, computers execute programs. What might be possible is artificial thinking, but I don't know. We put words to things and phenomena in our world, computers doesn't even have world to consider.

[hosti...@gmail.com]

>> Rod Pemberton is a stalker ---
>
> Lie.

"Stalking can be defined as the willful and repeated following, watching and/or harassing of another person. Unlike other crimes, which usually involve one act, stalking is a series of actions that occur over a period of time."

So he's technically right... Rod would in fact have to pull his crap *more than once* on someone (in Britain, technically exactly *twice*) on someone to constitute stalking, *after* they've been told it's unacceptable.

Whether this applies across individuals, I dunno. If he's told it's unacceptable on one person and goes on to another, that may reset the counter.

But I'll give him the opportunity now--if he would like--and very gladly call the authorities if he'd like to take me up on that. If we get a few people together, log a few of these posts, I think he might get a nice visit from the police.

Except for how well he disguises his IP and identity. Perhaps the cops could never find *him*.

[hughag...@gmail.com]

Discussion of Rod Pemberton being a stalker should be taken to this thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.forth/pemberton$20phoenix%7Csort:date/comp.lang.forth/sAX10l4CASQ/-m6CfFwMAgAJ

Here Rod was trying to induce me to go to a warehouse at 515 E Grant St. in south Phoenix --- within walking distance of the Hell's Angels' clubhouse.
If I was going to apply for a job with that company, why would I go to their warehouse? Wouldn't it be more normal to go to their office?
Also, the company doesn't employ programmers --- they lease warehouse storage space --- they also have a scam going for technical education for "non-techies."
I really wonder what would have happened if I had walked into their warehouse. I really wonder what Rod Pemberton's connection to them is.
Most likely they are up to something illegal, such as drug smuggling or fencing stolen property or human traffiking --- I don't want to find out!

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 21:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
hosti...@gmail.com wrote:



Hugh, you really shouldn't use hacked email accounts to spoof the
original owner. It's not nice, and it's illegal. I won't turn you in
to Google, but if someone else here does, you'll be banned. It's
really surprising that Google didn't already shut down that hacked
email account, due to the numerous breaches it's had. Seriously,
anyone could be using it.

> >> Rod Pemberton is a stalker ---
> >
> > Lie.
>
> "Stalking can be defined as the willful and repeated following,
> watching and/or harassing of another person. Unlike other crimes,
> which usually involve one act, stalking is a series of actions that
> occur over a period of time."

So, it seems stalking can be defined just about any way you want,
according to you, Hugh.

> So he's technically right... Rod would in fact have to pull his crap
> *more than once* on someone (in Britain, technically exactly *twice*)
> on someone to constitute stalking, *after* they've been told it's
> unacceptable.

So, "you," i.e., the email persona 'hostilefork', have "stalked" me
twice now, according to your own recently posted definition. Are you
thinking clearly? It seems not. Shall I be a gentleman and give the
Bobbies a ring-a-ling? Uh, Bobbies? I.e., Dude, why are you discussing
Britain? You do know that many Usenet trolls live there, yes? Some of
the worst of the worst do ... Did you move there recently, Hugh? Are
you planning to do so? Now, isn't it obvious from my posts that I'm
Chinese? No? And, just how would you know that? They speak English
too.

> Whether this applies across individuals, I dunno. If he's told it's
> unacceptable on one person and goes on to another, that may reset the
> counter.

WTF are you talking about nutjob? Did you just watch the 1998 movie
"Fallen"? It seems to be the exact same plot. Stop being a copycat.
At least, if you insist on being an annoying troll and rant here,
you come up with something original.

> Except for how well he disguises his IP and identity.

What makes you believe that I do either? ... (I.e., way too much work.)

Whether I do or don't, wouldn't that imply you've been doing some
"stalking" per your own definition? (Yes. Yes, it would. Hypocrite.)

(OMG, this part *SO* reminds me of Hugh's standard logic failures.
Freaky.)

> Perhaps the cops could never find *him*.

Are you implying that I'm a girl since you don't know whether I am or
not, or are you stating that the only thing that you're somehow sure of
about me is that I'm a guy? I.e., statistically, stalking by women
is notoriously low ... Either way, this comment is truly bizarre,
perhaps even truly sick. It makes me wonder if you were arousing
yourself at the time you posted it. If so, stop it and grow up.


Rod Pemberton
--
What's the difference between a "spy" and a "confidential informant?"
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. You can
scream all day long that it's a zebra, but that won't change the facts.

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 18:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
hughag...@gmail.com wrote:


I'm not a psychologist, but you seem to need some anger counseling,
and you have for a while now. A relative of mine, said that "The Power
of Habit" by Charles Duhigg, helped teach him how to recognize and
overcome his anger issues.

> Here Rod was trying to induce me to go to [blah]

I really, truly wish that I could say that I don't want you to go
anywhere, as you were once friendly to me. But, that would be a total
lie, nowadays. I do so seriously wish you would go somewhere else.
Take a vacation, please. You're still wanting to have Ms. Rather die,
right? The glee you expressed after her attack was just cruel and
unforgivable. To me, it's obvious that you're not helping yourself any
by being here. You're not helping others while you're here either.
You're only causing psychological grief for everyone else. So, why are
you here? Why do you stay? Do you have nowhere else or nothing better
to do with your time and life?

And, I /was/ trying to help you to get a programming job. I probably
shouldn't have, as you're such an ass. But, you openly said you needed
one, repeatedly. Wasn't that you asking us for a job opportunity?
What type of person would I be, if I denied you the opportunity for a
different future? At least, you're no longer complaining that you're
driving a taxi cab for a living, anymore. I doubt that anyone believed
that story, even if it was true or still is.

> Discussion of Rod Pemberton being a stalker should be taken to this
> thread:

Discussion of Hugh Aguilar being an annoying troll or rant should follow
this sentence. (But, I somehow doubt that anyone will respond /about/
you here, since they don't already respond /to/ you here. Seriously
though, Gavino gets far more legitimate replies than you. Ga-vi-no ...)