In article <7m3pv4$f0c at dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) wrote:
>Well, one question I can answer (assuming it is intended as a question
>and not as rhetoric, emerges near the bottom of this comedy of errors:
>"what kinda business are you in, doc?"
>ANSWER: I am a neuropsychologist (both clinical and experimental); in
>terms of livelihood, I am in the rehab business, i.e. am a member of
>the General Medical Staff of a physical rehabilitation hospital (our
>patients include those with stroke, traumatic brain injury, MS,
>epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and a few other neurological disorders
>particularly relevant to brain function, as well as conditions such as
>arthritis, pulmonary and/or cardiac problems, spinal cord injury,
>etc.).
>My research "business" (funded by my hospital) includes presentations
>of my findings and my theories mainly to the International
>Neuropsychological Society, and to the Society for Neuroscience;
>occasionally to other groups.
>Unpaid "business" includes presidency of the New York Neuropsychology
>Group and various positions in several sections of The New York Academy
>of Sciences. Among other things, this involves selecting distinguished
>speakers in a wide variety of areas in neuroscience, neuropsychology,
>and (recently) psycholinguistics, choosing themes for and organizing
>conferences (e.g. last year's "Neuropsychology and the Neuroimmune
>Dialogue", for which NYU granted continuing education credits for
>physicians and APA granted CE credits for psychologists).
>NYNG webpage: www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6117/index.html
>NYAS webpage: www.nyas.org
Great credits i see. Just as assumed.
But you are a tricky fellar also.
You see, you took out one sentence out of its context,
not even realizing what was the kwestion, most likely,
as you went ahead bragging how great you are.
Ok, we are not going to challenge any of your achievements,
but,
request has been made to comment on specific issues,
and, being a royal scientist you claim to be, you should
hopefully understand that taking a bit of information out
of context and blowing 3 paragraphs on it, not even seeing
the nature of the question, is not that cosher, or is it?
>As for the rest: I have no interest in defining "intelligence".
Good. And it would be even more exciting if you comment in place,
so we can see the context. Who knows, there may be more than one
meanings and implications. You never know.
For example, the question "what kinda business you are in, doc",
was NOT about your titles. You already signed phd, din't ya?
You ALREADY made certain pronounsements about your professional
activity.
That was OBVIOUS by then. What you said now, is the same, as you
said before, or isn't it?
Or you think by pumping up all sorts of lables and credits, you,
somehow, can validate your entire position?
And you see what you say from the start?
>As for the rest: I have no interest in defining "intelligence".
First of all, you have not even begun touching the rest ...
Secondly, if you are not even INTERESTED in [trying] to define
the intelligence, then what can you even continue saying here?
Afterall, this is about intelligence, doc.
Zo...
We have a little problem from the start, you see?
> Some
>people have an implicit notion of something or other which they for
>various historical reasons like to call "intelligence", but which
>cannot be discussed meaningfully unless and until they define it
>explicitly.
And what do you assume by "explicitly"?
Are you saying here that unless it can be shown and proved
by your outdated tools of material delusion, you will not be
able to accept it as ANYTHING valid?
Would you open up the term "explicitly defined"?
Else, it is not even clear what is the statement here?
Remifications could be much more significant, than originally
ASSUMED, or couldn't they?
> I am lampooning the naive assumptions that there is some
>"thing" or some "process" or some "whatever"
Scuze me.
> called intelligence,
Huh?
There is no such a thing.
Zo...
It is all a matter of what?
Programming the brain with the proper instructions?
> and
>that it is our job to discover what it
You just do yer royal job, and let other decide what to
and what NOT to discover, attempt to discover, consider,
or even deny.
What are you, a power maniac?
You wish to define a "job" for OTHERS?
Then what is YOUR job?
I bet you are just "doing what you can", right?
ALL noble and royal, and highly humain activity.
> is--or, in the case of some poor
>earnest and confused souls
And how do you even define that?
What is soul?
If you don't even believe there is such a thing as intelligence,
else how could you even conceive of not even attempting to define
it, thus identifying its scope, boundaries and substance,
what can you say about souls?
Aren't those just delusions?
> (v. infra), that it is their job to tell
>people what it" is or is not.
Again, mind yer own royal job.
Let those dudes decide which "job" they wish to do.
Who knows, they may not even have such an obscene idea
as you do, peddling this "job" trip of reducing humans
to the level of a machine.
You want to be a bio-robot?
Hey, go right ahead.
Come and tell people here how it feels and tell them what you found.
>It is one thing to rhapsodize over the unfathomable mystery of life
You know what, doc.
If i were in the position of authority,
I'd just fire you right after this sentence.
Hope you can see it one day.
Tell ya a little secret.
Mystery of life is ALL YOU GOT.
The rest you can process any way you please.
If you don't see the mystery in life,
how can you even be called a scientist?
What are you, a bean counter?
Counting the number of microorganisms and making conclusions
about intelligence?
With all the royal titles, you should do better than that.
You need to learn how to fly, doc.
But if you want to crawl, no problemos unos grandes.
> and
>to assert that it is beyond analysis or replication,
Yes, WELL beyond analysis, as you know it, and replication
first have to be show to make the most fundamental sense there
is, and that is of ISness.
Get a drift?
> but quite another
>thing to do the hard work
Donkeys are the hardest working things out there.
You seen how much load those humanoids put on their shoulders?
The donkey MUST, "therefore", be the most intelligent thing there is.
> of discovering even the smallest part of
>exactly HOW living creatures cope with their environments
>"intelligently".
They don't "cope".
YOU cope.
And you have this idea as a result of total corruption.
Life is not about "coping", it is about fun and joy.
Yes, plenty of "problems" "to solve".
But it is not a giant compromise
- to suck, or not to suck,
you see.
> The extent to which we can understand these
>processes, and the extent to which we can devise systems which can
>duplicate some aspects of these processes is to be empirically
>determined.
First of all, you have no authority to decrare what IS and what is
NOT "to be empirically determined", because, first of all,
this is just your belief,
and, furthermore, at this very junction,
it is not even based on ANYTHING
to substantiate it.
So, to this point, all you have is religion,
and you are bound to fall into the trap of morality.
> An a priori rejection of the enterprise suggests an
>implicit definition which I can only suspect (the definition being
>implicit and inferred, not made explicit) is a simple tautology:
>"Intelligence is intelligence; further "clarified" or "elaborated" as
>"intelligence is the intelligence of living beings; the intelligence of
>nonliving beings is not intelligence".
Depends on how you twist it, and what you SEE.
Right now, you are operating in the domain of monkey logic.
What sucking "enterprise" are we talking about here?
Now, as to "implicit" versus "explicit", you are in for a surprise.
Implicit you will be able to explain, at least to some extent,
but explicit is where you fall on your face real good, doc.
Furhtermore, this is utterly irrelevant as an argument,
unless you tie it in with something at the base,
and you don't even know what that might be,
or do you?
>WHATEVER "intelligence" is, by your (so far implicit), this offers no
>hope of understanding it;
True. Because "understanding" is purely mental excersize.
It is valid in certain domains and scope,
but this is not the END of the story,
but the beginning.
Is there ANYTHING beyond "understanding"?
Or do you think understanding is the ultimate measure of existance?
> if understanding it rather than rhapsodizing
>over it is your intent, this is a poor start.
Well, good enough start for now.
Do me a favor, doc, comment in place next time,
if you wish to follow up,
and would you be so kind as not to multiply the threads?
We are going to get confuzed here real fast, you know?
So we have started addressing some issues.
The bad news is that you refuse to define intelligence.
Not even clear you would be so kind as to define consciousness
and various states of it?
Is there one kind of consciousness "out there",
or are there different kinds?
What do you think about jungian ideas of subconscious
and COLLECTIVE subconscious?
Do you see what jung failed to realize?
And finally, here is some reference to what you cut out?
>>5. Your notions of intelligence can not be proven to provide
>>the reasons to be, to exist and to continue as entity.
>>The most fundamental principles, assuring your very survival,
>>are missing, and once they are missing,
>>there is simply no impetus to be.
>>There are more points, but let us see yer royal comments first.
>>> And then he goes
>>>on about how wonderful it all is.
>>IT what?
>>What it?
>>What kinda business you are in, doc?
[You see what was that kwestion is all about?
It was about you twisting things, not about yer royal achievement,
and you have fallen on your face right here.
You thought you take it out of context and make it look like ANYTHING
YOU want? Not that easy, doc.
Another thing, do you see how can you distort the whole thing
and make it look like ENTIRELY something else?
Is that how you make yer royal research into THAT WHICH IS?
]
>>One more time:
>>You better comment on specific points,
>>or get lost in the giant sucking machine.
And that ties in with the question.
------------------------- end of input ---------------------
>F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
>In <7lv2g1$ka9$1 at its.hooked.net> Bloxy's at hotmail.com (Bloxy's) writes:
>>In article <7ludt3$3si at dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
>flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) wrote:
>>>Well, I do recognize that by-now-classic insight, right at the
>>>beginning of this diatribe: "There is no gravity; the earth sucks".
>>Hey, what a royal opening.
>>>However, I think it goes downhill from there.
>>Sure?
>>>Let me pluck this one thing from the romantic rhapsody: I think I see
>>>something like the scandalously
>>What are you, a power maniac?
>>> dishonest use of an implicit (never
>>>explicitly defined) concept of "consciousness" (maybe not even a
>>>concept, maybe just a sentimental bias) pervading that new growth
>>>industry, symposia on "brain and consciousness" (Searles, et al.)
>>Well, may be you suck worse than a black hole?
>>Could that be?
>>Would you define it [consciousness]?
>>>Well, sorry for the convlouted sentence or whatever.
>>>He seems to be saying, "you can't analyse or duplicate intelligence,
>>>because you just can't.
>>Oh, you talking to me, doc.
>>What a royal touch!
>>Nope, that is what YOU are saying.
>>What me is saying is that you don't even have a slightest clue of
>>what intelligence is, or do you, doc?
>>Forget about "duplicating" it.
>>It is unique, non duplicatable.
>>Now, instead of sucking worse than a donkey ass here,
>>why don't you pick up zome specific points and argue
>>YOUR case?
>>Do i have to remind you? Can't figure it out?
>>And you wanna talk about what here?
>>Intelligence?
>>Oki, doki.
>>Go ahead.
>>You present yer royal argument,
>>but...
>>There is a catch here, and a condition attached:
>>Either you take what i said and present yer royal views
>>on the subject, or point out flaws, or move yer active
>>neurons a little bit,
>>cause you have no case right now from what you presented here,
>>or you just get lost in the depts of this giant sucking machine.
>>All you got is pure horseshit, or did i miss something?
>>Where is yer sucky case?
>>> I don't care how intelligent it seems to be,
>>>if it's not natural intelligence, it really isn't!"
>>No, you donkey.
>>I say:
>>1. There is not a single example of intelligence but in nature.
>>2. Even the arguments you derive or present are based on biological
>>intelligence.
>>3. The only tools you have are those, rooted in biological
>intelligence.
>>4. What you call intelligence is not intelligence,
>>but a functional mechanical level,
>>invalid as a general case for intelligence.
>>5. Your notions of intelligence can not be proven to provide
>>the reasons to be, to exist and to continue as entity.
>>The most fundamental principles, assuring your very survival,
>>are missing, and once they are missing,
>>there is simply no impetus to be.
>>There are more points, but let us see yer royal comments first.
>>> And then he goes
>>>on about how wonderful it all is.
>>IT what?
>>What it?
>>What kinda business you are in, doc?
>>One more time:
>>You better comment on specific points,
>>or get lost in the giant sucking machine.
>>>F. LeFever
>>>In <7lrknh$jqv$1 at its.hooked.net> Bloxy's at hotmail.com (Bloxy's)
>writes:
>>>>In article <3781235b at news3.us.ibm.net>, "Sergio Navega"
>>><snavega at ibm.net> wrote:
>>>>>F. Frank LeFever wrote in message
>>><7lr2jg$cdo at dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
>>>>>>[commenting on Mentifex diagrams]
>>>>>>I wouldn't bother looking beyond the diagrams he posts from time
>to
>>>>>>time: they are "armchair" or "common sense" notions of how the
>brain
>>>>>>"should" be organized that show absolutely no sign of being
>>>influenced
>>>>>>by what we know of actual brain organization on the basis of
>>>>>>"experiments of nature" (e.g. lesions due to stroke), formal
>>>laboratory
>>>>>>studies, experimental cognitive psychology, etc., etc.
>>>>>>Seems to me I saw somebody's comment to the effect that AI systems
>>>do
>>>>>>not HAVE to mimic natural systems and can stand on their own; but
>>>>>>unless more novel/elegant/interesting as pure creations than these
>>>>>>simplistic diagrams seem to imply, I see no point in pursuing such
>>>>>>schemes even as a hobby or game...
>>>>>>F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
>>>>>>New York Neuropsychology Group
>>>>>I largely agree with this opinion. Some years ago, I used to think
>>>>>that AI systems should pursue their own destinies, creating
>>>algorithms
>>>>>without regard to their "biological" counterparts (read: us), just
>>>>>by knowing what is required to make a system intelligent. This is,
>>>>>in fact, the predominant working model of the majority of the AI
>>>>>researchers that came from Computer Science departments.
>>>>>However, it became clear to me that the problem of "intelligence"
>is
>>>>>much, much more complex than our naive illusions led us to believe.
>>>>>Today I see no point in doing anything related to AI without a
>>>>>strong biological plausibility. One line of argument is that we
>must
>>>>>follow the path of the natural intelligences until we grasp what
>>>>>are the core points of intelligence, because we *still* don't know
>>>>>what they are. Only after that we will be able to "propose" new
>>>>>methods and algorithms to enhance biological intelligence with
>>>>>functionally equivalent
>>>>"Functionally equivalent" is a definition, inapplicable to
>>>intelligence.
>>>>It is the same absurd view of the world, based on a model
>>>>of giant sucking machine.
>>>>Unless you can show that the playfulness, art, beauty,
>>>>love and plenty of other aspects, are functional,
>>>>there is no way to reduce intelligence to a function of ANY kind,
>>>>as most exciting aspects of intelligence seem to be quite
>>>>"useless" from the standpoing of maximization of the rate os
>sucking.
>>>>> (but better) processes.
>>>>And that is just a result of this continuous obsession with
>>>>"improvements" of ALL THERE IS,
>>>>never quite even beginning to conceive
>>>>that it is forever the best it can possibly be,
>>>>never quite comrehending the grandiour of it
>>>>AS IT IS.
>>>>Before you can even begin to conceive the notions of
>>>>"better" processes or whatever you can invent,
>>>>first you need to learn to appreciate the glory,
>>>>tremendous vastness and multidimensionality of
>>>>ALL THERE IS.
>>>>You have not even begun to appreciate what you already posess
>>>>and what is already available,
>>>>and you don't have even a criteria
>>>>opon which you can assert that one alternative is "better"
>>>>than the other,
>>>>because, first of all,
>>>>the systems of logic and reasoning of yours
>>>>are incomplete and could be quite misleading
>>>>as to the very purpose of it all.
>>>>The rules of enclosure, or reduction of an opent system
>>>>to a closed system, do apply to your reasoning,
>>>>of which you don't even have any at the moment on this point.
>>>>"Better" is not universal criteria.
>>>>It is custom tailored to each individual
>>>>from the standpoint of improving the clarity of vision
>>>>and getting in touch with the inner validity and grandior
>>>>of each entity.
>>>>You are still using the outdated models,
>>>>limiting the multi-dimensional ALL THERE IS
>>>>into a single dimensional system of evaluation,
>>>>which can not be proven to universally hold.
>>>>>This does not preclude experimentation: often we'll have to create
>>>>>"strange" things, based on unlikely methods.
>>>>And often you are simply pooled into something.
>>>>The "reasonable" observer may say you are craving for something
>>>>crazy, endangering your own survival, "asking for trouble",
>>>>or all sorts of things,
>>>>but you persist.
>>>>You can not resist that pool.
>>>>"In fact", creativity, as manifesting aspect of intelligence,
>>>>is forever interested and looking at things "out of normal"
>>>>scope.
>>>>They jump essentially into nothingness of the "future".
>>>>There is absolutely no certainty that they will ever
>>>>achive what they intiutively crave for.
>>>>Quite often they even starve their entire life,
>>>>pursuing that, which they can not avoid,
>>>>as they still posess the most necessary element within,
>>>>honesty, innosense and love [of life].
>>>>They can not prostitute that, which they FEEL as significant,
>>>>for any amount of comfort, the others may posess.
>>>>> What is important is
>>>>>not to lose the goal of obtaining plausible results,
>>>>Even a notion of "plausible results" is vague.
>>>>> comparing
>>>>>our results with children's ways of learning and adult's methods
>>>>>of tackling new problems.
>>>>Yes, children are a very good reference.
>>>>They are still uncorrupted, pure.
>>>>They still have that necessary innosense,
>>>>quriocity, joy of inquiry, regardless of a "reward",
>>>>that ugly trick of manipulation,
>>>>programmed into these children's minds
>>>>from the very early stage.
>>>>>In summary, the road to intelligent systems is too elusive for us
>>>>>to waste time with implausible and risky methods: we ought to
>follow
>>>>>the steps of our brain, the best example of intelligence on Earth.
>>>>And you need to expand that notion of a "brain".
>>>>Right now it is just some kind of logic machine.
>>>>The most interesting aspects are not even adressed.
>>>>>Sergio Navega.
