Re: neurons and artificial intelligence 2

From: Kent Paul Dolan (xanthian_at_well.com)
Date: 05/29/04 

Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 10:09:29 +0000 (UTC)

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:

David, *when* will you learn to keep your acephalic
drivel out of functional newsgroups? Are you immune
to the normal netiquette obligation to attend to the
targets of your output, or merely too immeasurably
stupid to accomplish that task?

> Because it is quite clear to people older and more
> experienced than you

Translation: people at least as mindless, stubborn,
and ill-informed as one "David Longley", who,
unable to win arguments on facts, having none that
support his viewpoint, attempts to win them by
abusive application of semantically freighted
words to intimidate and bully others, instead.

> that Minsky and others (such as Miller, Chomsky,
> Bruner and other cognitivists) did not understand
> what Skinner, Quine and many of those
> who worked with them were saying and doing.

The merely world-class scientists with large and
much valued lifeworks in a field where your
contributions are all of the negative variety failed
to worship the gods whose boots you lick?

How sad for you, but how wonderful for the science
of AI that they chose to do otherwise, or we would
still be stalled counting pigeon pecks 50 years
after that ceased to be of interest.

> This led them to repeat what little they *did*
> (tacitly) glean albeit intensionally,

Oh, your magical meaningless buzzword, all things
can be tarred with the brush labeled "intensional",
but only when wielded by a mind so tiny that it
looks consequential in comparision.

Free clue: people not brain-dead at birth aren't
quite so afraid of intensions being a subject for
scientific investigation as you are with that very
problem.

> and get a lot else very *wrong* besides. This
> happened, probably, for no other reason that 1)
> what Skinner and Quine etc had to say was far more
> subtle than they appreciated and 2) young people
> who choose these disciplines are far too easily
> led by rhetoric.

Or, more likely, that one "David Longley" froze his
intellectual development about 1950, and has spent
every waking moment since trying to impose the same
handicap on others.

> You, at present, are too young, too inexperienced
> and too naive to grasp any of this.

This from the father of "psychoanalysis at a
distance"? Your "failure to grasp" is world
class, David, don't waste much time criticizing
the same flaw in others until you find a cure
for it in yourself.

> You should evaluate what has been done by the
> respective groups by what has actually been
> demonstrably achieved,

Did you really just say

    "by...by...actually...demonstrably"?

Do you have any concept as what a dunce such abuse of
English portrays you? No, probably not, come to that.
"Fragments" is rife with it.

> not by what they claim they have achieved. Failure
> to base your evaluation on that is just to be
> seduced by intensional heuristics and nefarious
> rhetoric.

Nefarious rhetoric like throwing "intensional" into
every argument as if it were worth warm spit? Look
first to that log in your own eye, David. A blind
man will *not* succeed to the leadership of AI, at
least not one whose blindness is of the intellectual
variety.

> In the final analysis, you have to make a "choice".

If we choose to reject you as the pitiful hulk of a
never particularly impressive has-been
employer-dismissed-for-good-and-sufficient-cause
prison psychologist administrator-wannabie, are
you going to argue our right to make that choice?

You constantly insult your betters, David, but I
suppose since that is most of the planet, you can
be given some bit of sympathy for the problem you
face in finding someone at whom to target your
ceaseless bullying who is _not_ your intellectual
superior. You just won't get that sympathy if you
keep spewing your mindless drivel into otherwise
functional newsgroups where it is profoundly off
topic.

Go away.

Your irritating whine annoys me, and doing that
hasn't worked out well for you in the past, nor
is it likely to do so in the future.

One newsgroup made utterly dysfunctional by your
participation there is pretty much your lifetime
bag limit. Squat toadlike in comp.ai.philosophy
until someone whose vibrant living intellect is
focused there manages to send you packing, drivel,
"intensionalism phobia", antiquated and superseded
"radical behaviorism", and all.

That you have no place where you are welcome is a
problem that *you* created, and with great and
consistently applied effort. I merely report it,
I'm not its cause.

xanthian. 

-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Modeling question...
    ... David BL wrote: ... Oops, meant to say 'n' is a value, not a variable. ... That's why I like extensions, to confirm the same result I get, intensions are too easy for different people to interpret differently. ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: "I will never forgive Polanski...."
    ... They seem to have delusions that their drivel is being read by ... some vast audience.>>> ... Led by David and Anim8R they are quite the bullying boy's club. ...
    (rec.arts.tv)
  • Re: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ who and why us this newsgroup being inundatedwith crap?
    ... Someone decided to call it "sporge". ... It is drivel. ... David A. Smith ...
    (sci.chem)
  • Re: Eminent Domain Abuse
    ... > no more, and contributed no more, than any other previous owner, none ... > David, you started out claiming that our arguments had been refuted ... the many posts where I thoroughly refuted this drivel. ...
    (sci.econ)