MindForth artificial intelligence lives forever.
ment...@myuw.net
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/mind4th.html
has just been updated with a KB-traversal
feature that traverses the knowledge base
and keeps the AI Mind thinking endlessly.
http://mind.sourceforge.net/mind4th.html
is another source of versions of MindForth.
http://AIMind-i.com is a progeny of MindForth.
Kent Paul Dolan
As a quick browse of this now long-standing review
of MindForth will confirm, Arthur T. Murray has
been flogging his claim to have "solved A.I." since
long before computers with capacities capable of
doing any such thing were available. This makes it
very appropriate that his claims are now being
crossposted to the science fiction hierarchy.
http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex_faq.html
Caveat emptor.
A quick Google for "MindForth" will show just
how pervasive this flogging has become.
xanthian.
Michael Ash
> As a quick browse of this now long-standing review
> of MindForth will confirm, Arthur T. Murray has
> been flogging his claim to have "solved A.I." since
> long before computers with capacities capable of
> doing any such thing were available. This makes it
> very appropriate that his claims are now being
> crossposted to the science fiction hierarchy.
Your post seems to imply that computers have now achieved the capacity for
A.I., though presumably not the actual capability. So this makes me
curious: are you posting from the future?
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
JimboCat
> The AI Mind in Win32Forth free online for robots
Free online for robots: humans pay cash.
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"If we can't be free, at least we can be cheap" - Frank Zappa
WizWom
> The AI Mind in Win32Forth free online for robots athttp://mentifex.virtualentity.com/mind4th.html
> has just been updated with a KB-traversal
> feature that traverses the knowledge base
> and keeps the AI Mind thinking endlessly.
>
> http://mind.sourceforge.net/mind4th.html
> is another source of versions of MindForth.
>
> http://AIMind-i.comis a progeny of MindForth.
I certainly cannot pass a Turing test.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>I certainly cannot pass a Turing test.
Come on, a real person wouldn't post that.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Your post seems to imply ...
The sheer number of internet participants
who convince themselves that they can read
my mind is astonishing. Just go with the
text you had, and don't add material to it
that you acquired by clairvoyance.
xanthian.
Michael Ash
If you can't understand what the word "seems" means, why even bother to
reply? Jerk.
Kent Paul Dolan
>>> Your post seems to imply ...
>> The sheer number of internet participants
>> who convince themselves that they can read
>> my mind is astonishing. Just go with the
>> text you had, and don't add material to it
>> that you acquired by clairvoyance.
> If you can't understand what the word "seems"
> means,
I quite well understand what your mealy-mouthed
"seems to imply" means, which is that you don't have
the required courage to make a plain statement.
> why even bother to reply?
To help you realize that putting words in the mouths
of Usenet participants, building strawmen of things
they never said and then arguing against those
strawmen rather than against what really was said,
is a highly despised behavior by nearly every sane
person participating here.
> Jerk.
Yes, you are, and you heavily reinforced that aspect
of your online reputation with this response.
In the future, think through _exactly_ how what you
write will be likely to be received by others of
whom you know next to nothing, before posting it.
http://www.well.com/user/xanthian/xanthian_who.html
xanthian.
On Usenet, your reputation is _all_ you have.
Erik Max Francis
> Michael Ash wrote:
> > Kent Paul Dolan <xant...@well.com> wrote:
> >> Michael Ash wrote:
>
> >>> Your post seems to imply ...
>
> >> The sheer number of internet participants
> >> who convince themselves that they can read
> >> my mind is astonishing. Just go with the
> >> text you had, and don't add material to it
> >> that you acquired by clairvoyance.
>
> > If you can't understand what the word "seems"
> > means,
>
> I quite well understand what your mealy-mouthed
> "seems to imply" means, which is that you don't have
> the required courage to make a plain statement.
>
> > why even bother to reply?
>
> To help you realize that putting words in the mouths
> of Usenet participants, building strawmen of things
> they never said and then arguing against those
> strawmen rather than against what really was said,
> is a highly despised behavior by nearly every sane
> person participating here.
The problem with all this puffing is that your original comment _did_
contain that implication. "Murray has been flogging his claim to have
'solved A.I.' since long before computers with capacities capable of
doing any such thing were available" implies pretty clearly that such
capacities are available now, which is all that Michael said. If you
don't think it does, well, fine, but we can only read your words, not
your mind.
So why not actually address his point, rather than huff and puff? Did
you bother even reading what it was?
> > Jerk.
>
> Yes, you are, and you heavily reinforced that aspect
> of your online reputation with this response.
You sure got puffed up a lot to end with a pathetic "I know you are but
what am I?" comeback.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
All the people in my neighborhood turn around and get mad and sing
-- Public Enemy
Kent Paul Dolan
> Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
> The problem with all this puffing is that your
> original comment _did_ contain that implication.
Only to a lunatic.
> "Murray has been flogging his claim to have
> 'solved A.I.' since long before computers with
> capacities capable of doing any such thing were
> available" implies pretty clearly that such
> capacities are available now,
Not to any sane person it doesn't.
> which is all that Michael said. If you don't
> think it does, well, fine, but we can only read
> your words, not your mind.
Which is precisely the thing about which I
complained.
Michael put _his_ interpretation of what
I *must* have _meant_ in his opinion, when I wrote
my response to Arthur T. Murray, into that writing,
and then tried to argue against that complete
falsehood as if I'd contended it to be true.
That is intellectual dishonesty of the despicable
sort.
Physical reality is not binary.
Thus, saying that in, say, the 1960's, computers
were not capable of supporting AI, says NOTHING AT
ALL about whether computers today are that capable.
You are equally ignorant and functionally illiterate
with the person you are defending. I suggest that in
the future, you keep out of discussions that don't
concern you, and about subjects that you don't
understand.
xanthian.
Bill Snyder
<xant...@well.com> wrote:
>Erik Max Francis wrote:
> > Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
>
> > The problem with all this puffing is that your
> > original comment _did_ contain that implication.
>
>Only to a lunatic.
>
> > "Murray has been flogging his claim to have
> > 'solved A.I.' since long before computers with
> > capacities capable of doing any such thing were
> > available" implies pretty clearly that such
> > capacities are available now,
>
>Not to any sane person it doesn't.
Then plainly you are the only sane person here, and you should
seek a less crazed environment. Don't let the doorknob hit you in
the ass.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Michael Ash
> Michael Ash wrote:
> > Kent Paul Dolan <xant...@well.com> wrote:
> >> Michael Ash wrote:
>
> >>> Your post seems to imply ...
>
> >> The sheer number of internet participants
> >> who convince themselves that they can read
> >> my mind is astonishing. Just go with the
> >> text you had, and don't add material to it
> >> that you acquired by clairvoyance.
>
> > If you can't understand what the word "seems"
> > means,
>
> I quite well understand what your mealy-mouthed
> "seems to imply" means, which is that you don't have
> the required courage to make a plain statement.
You want a plain statement? Here are two, for the price of one. You're an
asshole. Welcome to my killfile.
Erik Max Francis
> Erik Max Francis wrote:
> > Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
>
> > The problem with all this puffing is that your
> > original comment _did_ contain that implication.
>
> Only to a lunatic.
>
> > "Murray has been flogging his claim to have
> > 'solved A.I.' since long before computers with
> > capacities capable of doing any such thing were
> > available" implies pretty clearly that such
> > capacities are available now,
>
> Not to any sane person it doesn't.
"John has been going on about his claim to have stolen apples I grow
long before I've even had the capability" doesn't imply that I actually
grow apples now, does it? Yes? No? Really? Hilarious!
You're winning! Not sure what at this point, exactly, but you're
totally winning. Keep it up!
Tell you what, why don't you humor all of us peons and give a shot at
trying to explain what it was you were _trying_ to say, and then we can
chuckle at that too? Actually, on second thought, don't bother.
> Michael put _his_ interpretation of what
> I *must* have _meant_ in his opinion, when I wrote
> my response to Arthur T. Murray, into that writing,
> and then tried to argue against that complete
> falsehood as if I'd contended it to be true.
>
> That is intellectual dishonesty of the despicable
> sort.
>
> Physical reality is not binary.
>
> Thus, saying that in, say, the 1960's, computers
> were not capable of supporting AI, says NOTHING AT
> ALL about whether computers today are that capable.
I suppose if you attach a prospectus, guide to your special use of
terminology, and a proof in predicate calculus of what you really meant
rather than the obvious implication anyone fluent in English would
gather from what you actually _wrote_, sure. Winning!
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
A man cannot be comfortable without his own approval.
-- Mark Twain
Kenneth
> > "Murray has been flogging his claim to have
> > 'solved A.I.' since long before computers with
> > capacities capable of doing any such thing were
> > available" implies pretty clearly that such
> > capacities are available now,
>
> Not to any sane person it doesn't.
>
The word "were" is past tense and implies that the availability of
"computers with the capacities capable..." was in the past. And since
computer technology does not seem to get worse over time, we can infer
that we still have said technology in the present.
I know what you're trying to say, but you could have worded it
clearer, or removed the last part of the sentence completely.
And I don't think anyone meant to strawman you on purpose...
Guy Macon
Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
>
>Erik Max Francis wrote:
>
> > Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
>
> > The problem with all this puffing is that your
> > original comment _did_ contain that implication.
>
>Only to a lunatic.
>
> > "Murray has been flogging his claim to have
> > 'solved A.I.' since long before computers with
> > capacities capable of doing any such thing were
> > available" implies pretty clearly that such
> > capacities are available now,
>
>Not to any sane person it doesn't.
I am sane, yet I also see in the quoted phrase "since
long before computers with capacities capable of doing
any such thing were available" the clear implication
that such computers are available now. The word "before"
implies an "after."
In my opinion, your use of insults is a clear sign that
you don't believe that you can win the argument on the
basis of evidence or logic.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>