In article <403283a0.53792573 at netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
<lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net> writes
>On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 18:48:51 +0000, David Longley
><David at longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>In article <4032321a.43643711 at netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
>><lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net> writes
>>>On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:15:11 +0000, David Longley
>>><David at longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>>>>>In article <40311aad.36469116 at netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
>>>><lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net> writes
>>>>>On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:26:27 +0000, David Longley
>>>>><David at longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>In article <4030e04a.30726781 at netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
>>>>>><lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net> writes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi Eray -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I certainly agree with what you note here. The problem with arguments,
>>>>>>>rationales, etc. is that they are only about as useful as people's
>>>>>>>comprehension of them. I think they are conclusive once understood but
>>>>>>>Neil considers them totally or mostly word salad and you seem to be
>>>>>>>somewhere in the middle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But I'll say one thing for the arguments, they're brief. So they admit
>>>>>>>of evaluation in pretty straightforward terms. The only complicated
>>>>>>>rationale is for S "differences between differences" resolution of
>>>>>>>Russell's paradox and I'll be posting more on that in a few days.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The unfortunate thing is they don't have any obvious direct relevance
>>>>>>>to immediate issues in ai as the subject stands. The only significance
>>>>>>>I can think of at the moment is that these ideas indicate that the
>>>>>>>idea of actual sentience in ai is really something more than programs
>>>>>>>and whatever one chooses to project as ai in turing terms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This latter is more on the order of robotics or in cognitive arenas
>>>>>>>what I refer to as artificial neural turologies - ants. Which I find
>>>>>>>nothing wrong with because it will probably prove more useful than
>>>>>>>actual models of general cognition. However as Jim Bromer points out
>>>>>>>in his Re: Reasoning and AI yesterday, it has been the case that
>>>>>>>designers and programmers have thought they were more or less
>>>>>>>discovering and writing equations of cognitive behavior and sentience
>>>>>>>with their programs and that has definitely not proven to be the case.
>>>>>>>So I consider that it would behoove ai architects to understand why so
>>>>>>>they can reconsider whether they are aiming at actual cognition or
>>>>>>>just robotics and the difference between the two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Go and find out about *discrimination learning*.
>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah. David I've become havituated to your presence in terms of the
>>>>>clinical definitions offered by Neil Rickert. You have nothing to add
>>>>>to these conversations except claims of extraneous proof. So unless
>>>>>you have something new to offer I suggest you find some other fields
>>>>>to fertilize besides my own.
>>>>>>>>>>Regards - Lester
>>>>>>>>>>>>>A few questions: 1) have you looked into what discrimination learning is
>>>>all about and considered why I keep suggesting you look into it? 2) Have
>>>>you had a look at the Bennett and Hacker book or even a review of it? 3)
>>>>Do you see any similarities between your behaviour and that of Collins?
>>>>--
>>>Everywhere I look, David, all I see are your transparent forensic
>>>attempts to alter questions of truth and falsity of various issues to
>>>redundant questions of behaviorist scholarship. I don't doubt you are
>>>a behaviorist scholar. I do doubt you are relevant to discussions of
>>>truth and falsity. At least you do not establish your relevance to
>>>anything except the codex of behaviorist orthodoxy.
>>>>>>David, you are a blivit - that's ten pounds of shit in a five pound
>>>bag. And like shit you just tend to hang around and have a hard time
>>>cleaning up. By your standards of trite habituation Glen is only a
>>>semi blivit - 7 or 8 pounds of shit in a five pound bag - because he
>>>occasionally has something germane to offer.
>>>>>>Regards - Lester
>>>>>>>Are you able to answer any questions coherently? Have you looked into
>>what discrimination learning is about? Have you looked at the book
>>referenced in this thread? Do you see the similarities between your
>>behaviour and that of Colins? (oh, and Rickert)?
>>Of course I'm able to answer reasonable questions reasonably
>coherently.
We will have to disagree there.
>Unfortunately you ask questions relating to sciences of
>behavior like doing arithmetic on your fingers and toes.
Well, it's always a good idea to keep these things simple. However, I'm
certainly not asking you or others here "questions relating to sciences
of behaviour", although I do suggest that *you* ask some simpler
questions. I haven't noticed anyone really ask you any questions other
than to ask you to try to be less incoherent.
> Nor do you
>read what I write nor answer questions of mine.
That's because you don't make a lot of sense to anybody, and that's
because you really don't write about anything.
> Your only argument is
>the hackneyed reduction of other's arguments of others to evasive
>questions of behaviorist scholarship.
Perhaps you just don't know enough about any of this to be able to
understand what you read. There's a simple solution to that Lester, do
some disciplined reading/studying before offering your opinions posting
"critiques", asking silly questions and being generally obnoxious.
> So I don't bother to answer or
>even address questions you ask.
There's no *so* to it. You just don't know/understand enough to make any
useful or coherent contributions. That's not an insult, it's clearly
just a fact. That you chose to pretend otherwise just makes it harder
for you to learn - rather like Rickert and Collins in fact.
>>>If you want to learn about "Truth" - Try Quine's "Pursuit of Truth".
>>David, have you ever in your wildest diatribes seen any indication
>that I don't understand the subject already?
Definitely. I think you write a lot of nonsense. I thought I (and
several others) had already said that.
> Why would I want to
>understand Quine's truth or yours or that of any behaviorist who
>denies the presence of the only tool capable of analyzing truth.
>
The answer to that's simple. Quine knows what he's talking about, and
you don't. Read some of what he's written and learn.
--
David Longley