Ed Porter wrote:
RICHARD LOOSEMORE=====> You have no idea of the context in which I made
that sweeping dismissal.
If you have enough experience of research in this area you will know
that it is filled with bandwagons, hype and publicity-seeking. Trivial
models are presented as if they are fabulous achievements when, in fact,
they are just engineered to look very impressive but actually solve an
easy problem. Have you had experience of such models? Have you been
around long enough to have seen something promoted as a great
breakthrough even though it strikes you as just a trivial exercise in
public relations, and then watch history unfold as the "great
breakthrough" leads to .... absolutely nothing at all, and is then
quietly shelved by its creator? There is a constant ebb and flow of
exaggeration and retreat, exaggeration and retreat. You are familiar
with this process, yes?
ED PORTER=====> Richard, the fact that a certain percent of theories and
demonstrations are false and/or misleading does not give you the right to
dismiss any theory or demonstration that counters your position in an
argument as
"trivial exercises in public relations, designed to look
really impressive, and filled with hype designed to attract funding, which
actually accomplish very little"
without at least giving some supporting argument for your dismissal.
Otherwise you could deny any aspect of scientific, mathematical, or
technological knowledge, no matter how sound, that proved inconvenient to
whatever argument you were making.
There are people who argue in that dishonest fashion, but it is questionable
how much time one should spend conversing with them. Do you want to be such
a person?
The fact that one of the pieces of evidence you so rudely dismissed is a
highly functional program that has been used by many other researchers,
shows the blindness with which you dismiss the arguments of others.
Ed,
You are misunderstanding this situation. You repeatedly make extremely
strong statements about the subject matter of AGI, but you do not have
enough knowledge of the issues to understand the replies you get.
Now, there is nothing wrong with not understanding, but what happens
next is quite intolerable: you argue back as if your opinion was just
as valid as the hard-won knowledge that someone else took 25 years to
acquire.
Not only that, but you go on to sprinkle your comments with instructions
to that person to "open their mind" as if the were somehow being
closed-minded.
AND not only that, but when I display some impatience with this behavior
and decline to write a massive essay to explain stuff that you should be
learning for yourself, you decide to fling out accusations such as that
i am arguing in a "dishonest" manner, or that I am dismissing an
argument or theory just because it counters my position.
If you look at the broad sweep of my postings on these lists you will
notice that I spend much more time than I should writing out
explanations when people say that they find something I wrote confusing
or incomplete. When someone starts behaving rudely, however, I lose
patience. What you are experiencing now is lost patience, that is all.
Richard Loosemore
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=71815518-2fa3ba
