I've been trying to patiently wait until Jim's done to see if there was anything that even could be reasonably responded to. But I haven't been holding out much hope. When he used the word "discreet" instead of "discrete" way back when, I really got the feeling he doesn't have the background for meaningful contribution. And I've only seen vague abstractions with not enough precise usage or specifics to indicate how any work at all could even be done. And I think I saw the word "relativistic". To use physics jargon is a bad sign, if you aren't using it in its technically correct sense. I hate to be mean-spirited, and i'm kind of on the side of many of the nay-sayers, but seems like this forums is still a little bit angry. It's been a rough week for America, I know, but i'm hoping we my try to cool off a little be and have more constructive sorts of contributions, which I have at least striven for. andi
On Apr 18, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "Mike Tintner" <[email protected]> wrote: > JB:I don't have time for your crap right now. > > To quote myself: > > ”let’s see what you can do – if anything - (apart from being predictable and > making excuses)” > > From: Jim Bromer > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 6:14 PM > To: AGI > Subject: RE: [agi] Re: Summary of My Current Theory For an AGI Program. > > You have some good questions but they are mixed in with a lot of garbiage. I > wish you could learn some self-control so we could talk about the central > issues. I don't have time for your crap right now. > Jim Bromer > > > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
