In article <7m963u$8vi at dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) wrote:
>In <7m480g$6k4$1 at its.hooked.net> Bloxy's at hotmail.com (Bloxy's) writes:
>>In article <7m3pv4$f0c at dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
>flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) wrote:
[...]
>Bloxy misses the point of my most explicit statements, that it is not a
>matter of my being "unable" to define "intelligence" but of not being
>interested in defining "it".
Fine, but then we have a religion.
Either you answer the question what is intelligence
to the best of your abilities,
or you deny the very possibility of intelligence
on the same basis essentially as denial of anything
beyond the mechanical level.
Now, you say you have studied the issues for a long, long time.
And still you are not "interested" in defining it?
Then how do i know that you are not simply hallucinating
about something, that does not even "exist"?
>He seems unable to grasp the concept that there is no such "thing"
>called "intelligence" that one is smart enough and learned enough to
>define or not smart and learned enough to define.
Ok, if there is no such a "thing", no matter how you define that "thing",
then the intelligence is what?
A property of some other "thing"?
> For others (if any)
>reading this, let me offer this little tutorial:
>Primitive man observed that animals that breathed were able to move
>about and do things; those that ceased breathing also ceased to move
>about and do things. In the absence of basic knowledge of physiology,
Why not physics, chemistry, mathematics?
Those are all "wrong"?
And what that psysiology have to do with?
Level of material body?
Hey, there is a little surprise for you.
You are outdated by few milleniums.
Now, you are saying you are master of what?
>and the role of respiration in the whole of physiology, "spirit" (and
>other forms of the words meaning "breath") came to be an explanatory
>principle, an entity separate from the body and its functions,
>animating it and (upon death) continuing independently of it.
Sorry, doc. This is just a purest form of lowest grade
materialistic horseshit.
You can not possibly prove that that is the way it WAS.
You can only guess.
And you are quite arrogant at that, like you are some kind
of god, who REALLY knows "how it all began".
Have you heard of a science of breething called pranayama?
You see, what you know about breth, is purest obscenity
compared to what those dudes discovered a few milleniums ago.
You see, only now you begin to look at it, and already there
are plenty of studies indicating something beyond your
obscene idea of "physiology".
Physiology is a part of functioning intelligence,
assuring operation in the physical domain.
These are all aspects of the same entity.
First of all, it is not an entity "separate from physical body".
It is all a part of the same equasion.
Secondly, YOU are not just some "body function", or result of thereof.
Else, there is no difference between you and machine,
WHATSOEVER.
YOU ARE A MACHINE.
You know what that implies?
But you see, doc, that is EXACTLY what you are to preech.
Cause that is "where the money is", isn't it?
So far, you have no argument WHATSOEVER.
You have not explained ANYTHING.
You have not shown ANYTHING new.
It is the same old giant sucking machine so far,
that you seem to be interested in feeding.
Are you trying to get on the right end of the pipe,
by any humble chance, doc?
>Similarly, observing a multitude of ways that humans coped with a wide
>range of problems,
"Life is not a problem to be solved,
It is a mystery to be experienced".
> our ancestors inferred some kind of entity
>responsible for this, and named this hypothetical thing "intelligence".
No, you horseshit peddler.
This is not some mental masturbation, just like yours.
It was and IS a result of DIRECT EXPERIENCE.
UNDENIABLE.
YOU peddle here ding dong theories of "hey, we are all just
bio-robots", and you don't seem to be even capable of conceiving
what you are doing.
You know what you are doing?
You are denying YOUR OWN VALIDITY.
That is all.
And we are not even going to open it up this time.
You'll have to do some work to figure out what that is.
Like they say in your lands:
"It is YOUR problem".
So far what you presented here is UTTERLY uninspiring.
Your model does not even exist, or does it?
What is it?
>With the development of the scientific method, we have made
>considerable progress in understanding specific examples of coping,
>specific examples of processing sensory stimuli, organizing our
>perceptions and directing "intelligent" responses.
Profanity.
>If someone asserts that this work does not really clarify or explain
>"intelligence",
No, it does not.
Does not even begin to address the issues.
Not even interest is there.
All you want is a giant sucking machine,
doing ALL you can to achive what result?
MAXIMIZATION OF PERFORMANCE.
YOU are a machine. A bio-robot.
And a bio-robot with a very high degree in science.
Bad news, doc.
Bad news for you, bad news for your "societies".
Bad news, overall.
What is likely to follow,
is something, you may not be able to afford.
> then it is the responsibility of this person to define
>the term, so we can see just what it is that our scientific analysis
>has failed to clarify or explain.
Are you saying here what?
That the intelligence is contextual?
It can not be defined because we are all "different"?
What is the argument here, doc?
Very poor reasoning so far.
You will not even be able to classify it on "failed"
or "succeeded", as to even do that much, you'll be faced
with multi-dimensional choises, none of which can be proven
to universally hold.
Not even clear WHAT can you prove or clarify about that,
which is a subject of this group, intelligence.
They claim the term artificial intelligence.
I claim that it is artificial obscenity or artificial
suckology. Pick the one you like. Does not really matter.
Artificial intelligence is obsceinity because the dudes,
working on this subject forgot the most essential elements.
They can not and will not succeed.
It is simply impossible.
They came to absurd.
Even if they ever succeed, they'll sign their own death
sentence, INEVITABLY.
There will simply remain no purpose to be WHATSOEVER.
You completely destroyed the very purpose of this lab
of physical existance.
As to artificial suckology, we covered that subject extensively.
> This job is apparently too demanding
>or the concept that the job needs to be done is too subtle for some
>peoople (most people?).
You know what this group is about?
You know what they claim here?
You just dissolved the royal society of artificial intelligence.
>The IMPLICIT definition is apparently rather simplistic: there is
>something "in" humans (maybe "in" other animals as well; I suppose
>there are different factions among the conceptually-challenged) that
>let's us do all these intelligent things, and this "something" CANNOT
>be in computers or other living things.
Why?
You need to provide reasons.
And the reasons were provided numerous times from this side.
So far, you have no argument.
> In other words, it is a
>definition which does not allow any serious discussion,
What is "serious"?
What does it have to do with ANYTHING?
You wanna keep a serious face to convince your students
that you are not a conman?
That is not such a royal achievement.
No, you need to be playful as much, as you can,
and even when you say i can't be more playful,
then you still look around. Who knows, may be you can.
Seriousness has nothing to do with THAT WHICH IS.
It is a part of the game of control, opression and domination.
Ugly game of fear and guilt,
as peddled by morality salesman, disguising themselves
into all sorts of forms.
Pervaisive it is.
> much less any
>investigation. It has no "truth" value, because it can neither be
>proved nor disproved; it is simply a matter of faith,
No way, hosey.
You are out to lunch here.
It has NOTHING to do with faith.
It is a direct experience, of what you are missing as a term,
super consciousness. Super not in terms of "superior"
but as in opposite direction to sub (conscious).
It is something of the sort, called synchronicity by carl jung.
Jung correctly identified sub-conscious and even collective
subconscious, which is a breakthrough in your thinking,
but he could not comprehend the idea of SUPERconscious.
Strange, huh?
Well, it simply logically follows, you see.
Nothing to be even done about it.
It is all there on purely scientific grounds.
No magic required.
> and/or of
>"definition", i.e. it is defined in a way which makes it a priori
>impossible for anything other than a living human (animal?) to be
>"intelligent".
Again, the reasons were provided.
You have to comment on specific reasons
and dismiss it as either invalid, or non existant,
or delusion, or whatever trick you wish to use.
First, it makes it impossible on purely logical grounds.
Again, no magic is required here.
In order for something to be, you need to have a reason for
it to be. You need to provide the IMPETUS for it to be.
Yes, you can turn the sucking machine on, and it will be
sucking till the end of time, or when it runs out of power.
But that is it, then.
After that, all you have is pure nothingness.
Secondly, it is not simply "defined" in such a way.
This IS the ONLY example of intelligence you have.
Either you attempt to emulate it in "hardware",
in which case you are going to have the problems of
the purpose and many others.
First, you'll be limiting scope of it, at least in forseable
future, in which case you will not have a way of knowing
which aspects are "significant" for various reasons.
First of all, you'd have to be able to look into the "future"
even to define that significance, because, who knows, may
be what you think as significant today, may ultimately turn
out to be the most INsignificant thing there is.
>It has no heuristic value; i.e., it does not inspire efforts to
>investigate anything or to learn anything already investigated.
Just the other way around.
>In such a situation, one can only "rhapsodize" about the wonder of it
>all.
Yes, YOU can.
Cause you are as blind, as depths of the elefant's ass
it seems.
You see, it is within you.
It is within EVERYBODY.
It is READILY available,
only if you paid a little more attention
and learned a few very simple tricks.
You know, the state when you discovered something.
You get extatic, you run around like crazy and do all these
"undesirable" or "unreasonable" things.
When that happens, become aware
of what it is, deep inside you that experiences that extacy?
You can not deny the extacy.
And you can not deny that there is an experiencer.
Walking on the street during the weekend, just wandering around,
become aware of what is this state of relaxation or subtle joy
of simpy being.
Simple things like that.
Then you come back and we talk more.
Else, it is not very interesting.
You need to have an experience,
before you can deny anything.
Else, all you have is religion.
> Not that I mean to knock rhapsody:
You know how much you are worth without that "rhapsody"?
A big funken ZERO, doc.
And that is the tragedy,
that you don't even understand the most essential elements
of intelligence, consciousness and who you are on the first place.
That is your biggest "problem".
Otherwise, everything is just fine.
> wonder and admiration at the
>mysteries of life are appropriate.
Yes, that is how intelligence perpetuates.
It keeps you on your toes.
And, the magic of it is, that no matter how much you learn,
discover, etc., it still keeps going.
There seems to be just an unlimited potential at ANY given
juncture.
And you dismiss it all, like some useless junk.
Man, you suck.
> Some of life's mysteries may never
>be understood,
They can NOT be EVER "understood".
It is not a matter of understanding, which is a mental domain
or reasoning of all kinds.
How can you understand the purpose of a rose flower?
It is simply rediculous.
First of all, it is way too fragile.
Easily destructible.
Then it lives for a couple of weeks, at the most.
Then it simply goes to dust.
And yet, amazingly enough, you all love it and give it
to your lovers, as a symbol of beauty.
See the absurdity?
> some when understood should still inspire awe and
>wonder; and true mysteries (i.e. not the vulgarized sense of difficult
>clues to follow until one solves the "crime")
Yes, you perverted even a beautiful term mystery.
To you, mystery, is murder related trip.
> in some sense can never
>be "understood", but it is a vulgar error to rail at those trying to
>understand as much as can in principle be understood when approached
>with enough work and enough "intelligence".
You have no scientific argument so far.
>Bloxy diatribes
You suck worse than a black hole, you guilt peddler.
You are not a scientist, interested in discovering
THAT WHICH IS.
You are a morality peddler, controller and manipulator.
A new super-sucking priest, who replaced the religious
priest, because that religious priest couldn't prove
ANYTHING. So you took his place of control and domination,
prestige and ultimate [sucking] authority.
But you are still the same, you see.
Nothing changed.
Diatribes?
You, donkey ass, so far can not even dismiss ANY of it,
or can you?
You simply dismiss the argument based on this perverted,
indirect reference to "instanity" grade material.
You say the other is simply "mad". So, therefore, he can
not possibly have a valid argument, as who does those
"diatribes", but "mad" people?
See how cunning is your royal poison?
> the common and naive (adolescent?)
Yes, guilt and fear.
That is your domain.
You have no scientific argument whatsoever,
and, being just the same old priest, only changed the dress,
and even that not very much, you play the same card indeed.
> belief that nobody
>else sees what he sees or has had the great insight that he has had;
What kind of argument is this?
Guilt again?
> in
>general, the neuroscientists he rails against
I am not against neuroscientists, but the horseshit peddlers,
just like you, who can not even begin to comprehend the
very subject of the study, reducing ALL to the level of
machine.
And i am not against ANY scientist.
All that is required is sincerety and authenticity.
The rest is insignificant.
WHAT you do is not a problem.
Afterall, you have to do something,
else you are no different from a vegitable.
> have indeed had these
>"insights", probably at about the same age he seems to be (14? 15?
Thats pretty dumb.
First of all, you are trying to belittle someone on the basis of
age, and your best scientists often make their great discoveries
at a young age, and so are the musicians, dancers, singers
and many others.
So, age is YOUR prototype brainwashed brain full of template thinking.
And what if it turns out that the dude you try to accuse of being
young and therefore naive, is not young?
What would be your sucky argument then?
You see how bad you suck?
And what is the "meat" of your "argument"?
> the
>prediliction for "suck" supports this inference,
Are you a pathological liar, by any humble chance?
Trying to make up your ugly case, which will inevitably
lead to fear and guilt, in order to control, opress and
dominate?
First of all, suck is a multi-dimensional notion.
And you are just concocting a pile of horseshit,
just because you can not even begin to comprehend the
issues of intelligence.
If you can not even define it, then what is it you are talking
about?
How do you describe it?
> and I know that many
>really talented "computer geeks"
Man, you suck.
It seems the whole table is going to get sucked into the screen
real zoon now.
Your terminology is simply fascist, you see.
> have well-developed computer skills by
>this age).
And then?
What kind of argument is this?
>We know what he is talking about. We've been there, done that. We've
>moved on.
Oh, another wee wee man.
Hey, join the club.
Just hollor, the wee wees will be crawling out of the woodwork
in no time.
> He doesn't (yet) know what WE are talking about.
Sorry, i do.
You are talking about a gian sucking machine, aren't ya?
> Give him a
>few years... (of course, if this is a case of ARESTED adolesc
What was that?
Man, who allows you to "do" science?
How more corrupt can you get but to go on this level?
Are you a fascist, by any humble chance?
Family values?
Free sucking werld?
Suckocracy rewls?
Not only your opponent MUST be young, and, therefore,
"inferior", but, just to substantiate your cunning accusation,
you add ARESTED to it.
Then you sign it with your name
and add phd to it, just to make sure
that the ultimate sucking authority came to this "verdict",
right?
Then you send them where, doc?
On a road to hell?
Praise the sucking lord!
You talk about science, but you are lost in the domain of morality.
You talk about investigation but are not even "interested" in
defining the very subject of your study.
Intelligence either exist, or it does not exist.
If it exist, you better be able to define it.
Else you are in delusion.
How do i know we are talking about the "same thing"?
And you denied yourself your own validity,
and YOU are the only one, who will face the consequenses of it,
no matter how "long" it will take.
It is INEVITABLE.
Ok, that is all fer ya, doc.
