John,

Why don’t you answer the problems set, rather than just throw around abuse?

You gave no example of an improvisational program along the lines I outlined, 
just asserted that there was one.

You will give no example of how maths can deal with the problems I set.

You can give no example of how maths is contributing anywhere to a demonstrable 
AGI result.

You are arguing like a child, not a serious person who engages with problems , 
evidence and examples – or who is really interested in AGI.

The problem of recognizing and drawing the multiform/polyform/infinite-form 
manifestations of a “line” is central to AGI.

Put up something concrete.



From: John G. Rose 
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 2:32 PM
To: AGI 
Subject: RE: [agi] The Non-Mathematical Nature of Pictures/Irregular Forms

Ya just because Mike has a mental knot when it comes to understand maths and 
logic needn’t mean that it should hinder others progress here on AGI research.

 

This is definitely a strange curiosity… Whatever!

 

Mike, go do some research we’re not your maths tutors here… people have tried 
to explain some basics to you many times already.

 

John

 

 

From: Steve Richfield [mailto:[email protected]] 



Tudor (and Mike),

Responding to these posts may be good exercise for your fingers, but talking 
about something where the listener has no clue what the subject is, is a 
COMPLETE waste of your valuable time and effort. I have tried and failed, as 
will you and anyone else who takes Mike's bait.

Mike has absolutely NO clue regarding the prospective boundaries of 
mathematics, or for that matter, even what advanced mathematics might be useful 
for. Mike in effect "thinks" that he can proceed in some sort of quasi-useful 
direction without ANY form or manipulable representation. That Mike has 
apparently made it through his teenage years while preserving this thought 
should be ABSOLUTE PROOF that you might as well be sending your responses to 
the bit bucket.

That our neurons manipulate their inputs is pretty good proof that whatever is 
being represented is manipulable, and therefore easily within the grasp of some 
sort of suitable mathematics (that may or may not yet exist). Everyone easily 
sees this but Mike.

Mike "thinks" we are all running in the wrong direction, but he has yet to make 
his case. I continue to read his postings in the continuing hope that he has 
woke up the challenge of explaining his vision to the rest of us mere mortals, 
but so far, no joy. However, I no longer respond to his crazy attacks on all of 
mathematics.

Steve



      AGI | Archives  | Modify Your Subscription   



-------------------------------------------
AGI
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Reply via email to