Andi,Well, yes most blanket dismissals are based on paradigm differences. Your deference to industry explains some of your interest in machine learning. I am not pursuing machine learning per se although I would use algorithms from the field if they helped me.Jim Bromer Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Summary of My Current Theory For an AGI Program. From: [email protected] Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:37:09 -0500 To: [email protected]
Jim, at this point I was not trying to address your theories specifically. I was just expressing exasperation at the lack of technical detail here right now. Details are import and need to be specific and precise in order for work to be done. Yeah, sorry about getting ticky about use of terms, but when you study this stuff academically, what can perhaps seem like simple mistakes of terminology come across as, I guess I would say "unprofessional". I suppose this group has always been like this, but I'm right now trying to say, well, it is possible to be negative, but give clear reasons for and not just shout and be emotional. Sorry for not being more constructive. I think I might have had some more sort of detailed things I could address, but they were piling up to the level of no longer seeming to be of much value. So to throw something somewhat more positive out there, I just looked at the website of the people working at Google Research. They've got literally tons of people in areas like machine perception, AI, machine learning, machine translation. It does give me the feeling that there are people, and with enough plugging, they will eventually get AGI as just a natural progression. Of, course, I think they field and the stuff they use has some missing bits, but that's just me. You all can tilt at all the windmills y'all want, but they have money and talent at a level we can't approach.andi On Apr 19, 2013, at 8:30 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: Andi, You did not actually talk about any central issue. You did make two editorial criticisms. About one half of the criticisms that I have heard so far have been stylistic and editorial. I appreciate the note about the word "discreet" but why not just point it out in a cooperative spirit? I use the word relativistic for a reason. First of all, relativism was a word from philosophy before it was a word from physics so your demand that the word-concept only be used to discuss relativism from physics really is nonsense. In the past I have tried saying that concepts were relative and people misunderstood. Some people thought I was only saying that concepts are related to other concepts. When I say that concepts are relativistic I am trying to get the idea across that concepts actually impact on the meaning of other concepts and so a lot of relativistic problems occur. For one thing you have to use concepts to analyze other concepts and since the concepts of analysis can change the meaning of the concepts being analyzed that means that the analysis can be quite elusive. I will add something about that to my note that concepts are relativistic. By the way, what are the meaningful contributions that you have made? Oh right, when you make a critical contribution that does not actually say anything about AGI it is just you being profound, but when it is aimed back at you it is really bad form. Your criticism boils down to the editorial note that I used the word "discreet" instead of "discrete" and an reminder that there are some people who have a lot of trouble grasping the idea that concepts are relativistic. Jim Bromer Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Summary of My Current Theory For an AGI Program. From: [email protected] Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:35:20 -0500 To: [email protected] 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 | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription 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-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
