WHY ARE RICHARD'S METHODS THAT PRODUCE FALSE STATEMENTS "MUCH BETTER"
THAN
MY IDEAS
First, please stop shouting (as others have requested)
--- which are "better" --- as your above quote implies. That is
contrary to any reasonable notion of what science is supposed to be about.
Sorry. Science *DOES* evaluate quality of evidence. Strident statements
with no backing, acronyms with no purpose except to put ideas down (FUD),
and ad hominem attacks are all bad/worse/not better.
My showing that statements on a scientific subject are false --- when
there
is strong reason to believe they are false --- *is* "doing science."
I'm sorry but I haven't seen this. I've seen you DECLARE things false but I
haven't seen compelling chains of evidence that SHOW that you are correct
and that they are indeed false. The fact that I'm disagreeing with Richard
but am still totally unimpressed with your arguments should give you a hint.
AND WITH REGARD TO "THE TRUTH IS *NOT* OBVIOUS" --- obviously at some
level
there is no clear "truth" about anything. All of reality could be a
deception.
And, please, just stop with the BS. This type of argument is called a
strawman. This is why I accuse you of BAD SCIENCE.
And by any reasonable standard of truth it is clear Richard's statement in
his blog --- that the four features of design doom make it impossible to
design a system that has them --- was false as originally written. It is
false because AI systems have been designed which contain these four
features.
OK. Name these systems and their successes. PROVE Richard's statement
incorrect. I'm not seeing anyone responsible doing that.
Furthermore, it is clear Richard made another false statement when he not
only (1) claimed I unfairly characterizing his four feature argument by
implying it was broad enough to cover non-AGI AI systems as well as AGI
systems, but then (2) when I alleged this was a distinction not included in
his original statement of his four features argument --- he implied I was
falsely describing what he had written.
Stop being pissy. Get over yourself. Neither of you two are masters of
clear, concise description and both of you are evolving your arguments.
That's fine. Stop the ad hominem attacks and address the current argument.
THEN you're doing science. All you're doing now is pissy, little "he said,
she said" BS.
The fact is, it is clearly Richard who was doing the false description,
because in he original statement of his four features of design doom
argument he said:
***"These four characteristics are enough. Go take a look at a natural
system in physics, or an engineering system, and find one in which the
components of the system interact with memory, development, identity and
nonlinearity. You will not find any that are understood."***
This makes it quite clear he intended his four features argument to cover
not only AGI systems, but also any AI system, any computer system, or any
engineered system, whatsoever, that contained the four features.
So. Again. Name those systems and their successes.
So Mark if you prefer Richard's false and sometimes dishonest statements
to
my attempts to point out the truth, that's your right --- but please don't
imply it promotes science.
Your attempts seem to only point out your opinion -- not the truth (or are
you arrogant enough to believ that because it's your opinion, that makes it
the truth).
And with regard to your allegation of "politics", please appreciate that
Richard is one of the most extreme people on this list in attacking the
arguments and intelligence other peoples. And when he does it based on
reasoning that is false and dishonest I and other have a right to point out
the falseness and dishonesty of his arguments and attacks.
I don't care about politics as long as someone has a clue about what science
is and also does science. Yes, Richard gets extreme. I'm probably far
worse. Get used to it. Do science and you won't get flamed (or, it won't
matter). Do politics and all of a sudden, all the little pissyness matters.
Why are you getting so upset if it's science?
It's not only science. It's fairness.
Science has nothing to do with fairness. Get over it.
P.S. You can have the last say in response to this post. I have already
spend too much time on this particular subject.
And then, he takes his ball and goes home. Yep, that's science . . . .
So, Mr. Science, are you ever going to pony up with a list of systems that
refute Richard's claims?
By the way, just a reminder that I have declared Crocker's rules on myself
repeatedly -- just don't waste my time with BS (and yes, I have had e-mails
that spent the entire time insulting me in creative ways -- they were
wonderful ;-).
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
