On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually, I think COMP=false is a perfectly valid subject for discussion on > this list. > > However, I don't think discussions of the form "I have all the answers, but > they're top-secret and I'm not telling you, hahaha" are particularly useful. > > So, speaking as a list participant, it seems to me this thread has probably > met its natural end, with this reference to proprietary weird-physics IP. > > However, speaking as list moderator, I don't find this thread so off-topic > or unpleasant as to formally kill the thread. > > -- Ben
If someone doesn't want to get into a conversation with Colin about whatever it is that he is saying, then they should just exercise some self-control and refrain from doing so. I think Colin's ideas are pretty far out there. But that does not mean that he has never said anything that might be useful. My offbeat topic, that I believe that the Lord may have given me some direction about a novel approach to logical satisfiability that I am working on, but I don't want to discuss the details about the algorithms until I have gotten a chance to see if they work or not, was never intended to be a discussion about the theory itself. I wanted to have a discussion about whether or not a good SAT solution would have a significant influence on AGI, and whether or not the unlikely discovery of an unexpected breakthrough on SAT would serve as rational evidence in support of the theory that the Lord helped me with the theory. Although I am skeptical about what I think Colin is claiming, there is an obvious parallel between his case and mine. There are relevant issues which he wants to discuss even though his central claim seems to private, and these relevant issues may be interesting. Colin's unusual reference to some solid path which cannot be yet discussed is annoying partly because it so obviously unfounded. If he had the proof (or a method), then why isn't he writing it up (or working it out). A similar argument was made against me by the way, but the difference was that I never said that I had the proof or method. (I did say that you should get used to a polynomial time solution to SAT but I never said that I had a working algorithm.) My point is that even though people may annoy you with what seems like unsubstantiated claims, that does not disqualify everything they have said. That rule could so easily be applied to anyone who posts on that list. Jim Bromer ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
