Re: neurons and artificial intelligence 2
From: David Longley (David_at_longley.demon.co.uk)
Date: 05/29/04
- Next message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: limitation to the halting proof"
- Previous message: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Hardware/Software Dichotomy and Platonism (Re: expectations being satisfied)"
- In reply to: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: neurons and artificial intelligence 2"
- Next in thread: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: neurons and artificial intelligence 2"
- Reply: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: neurons and artificial intelligence 2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 16:43:15 +0100
In article <7949c460170e1516311076aa728b0d46.48257@mygate.mailgate.org>,
Kent Paul Dolan <xanthian@well.com> writes
>"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.
>
>
I can't find anything substantial in what you write even after trying
*really really* hard. After reading it several times I decided it must
be a drug released fragment of your past viewing of "The Holy Grail", so
here's a refresher [you seem to be the French Guard (on Abilify or
Prozac), and for the sake of completeness, you seem to have cast Glen
and I (me at least) as either a bemused King Arthur or Sir Galahad!]
ARTHUR: Halt! Hallo! Hallo!
GUARD: 'Allo! Who is zis?
ARTHUR: It is King Arthur, and these are the Knights of the Round
Table. Who's castle is this?
GUARD: This is the castle of my master, Guido Wommer!
ARTHUR: Go and tell your master that we have been charged by God with a
sacred quest. If he will give us food and shelter for
the night he can join us in our quest for the Holy Grail.
GUARD: Well, I'll ask him, but I don't think he'll be very
keen... Uh, he's already got one, you see?
ARTHUR: What?
GALAHAD: He says they've already got one!
ARTHUR: Are you sure he's got one?
GUARD: Oh, yes, it's very nice-a (I told him we already got one)
ARTHUR: Well, um, can we come up and have a look?
GUARD: Of course not! You are English types-a!
ARTHUR: Well, what are you then?
GUARD: I'm French! Why do think I have this outrageous accent,
you silly king!
GALAHAD: What are you doing in England?
GUARD: Mind your own business!
ARTHUR: If you will not show us the Grail, we shall take your
castle by force!
GUARD: You don't frighten us, English pig-dogs! Go and boil your
bottoms, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you,
so-called Arthur-king, you and all your silly English kaniggets.
Thppppt!
GALAHAD: What a strange person.
ARTHUR: Now look here, my good man!
GUARD: I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed
animal food trough water! I fart in your general direction! You
mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
GALAHAD: Is there someone else up there we could talk to?
GUARD: No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time-a!
ARTHUR: Now, this is your last chance. I've been more than
reasonable.
clips:
<http://www.jahozafat.com/Movies/Monty_Python/mp8.wav>
or
<http://www.jahozafat.com/MP3S/Movies/Monty_Python/mp8.mp3>
-- David Longley
- Next message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: limitation to the halting proof"
- Previous message: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Hardware/Software Dichotomy and Platonism (Re: expectations being satisfied)"
- In reply to: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: neurons and artificial intelligence 2"
- Next in thread: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: neurons and artificial intelligence 2"
- Reply: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: neurons and artificial intelligence 2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
