I am not sure what Stan meant by a lack of depth but I assume that he was talking about definitions of the terms that he linked on. So, for example, I should have included a deeper definition of the term "understanding"? No. I was saying that to understand one idea you need to understand many related ideas. And that recognition requires some kind of imaginative projection of previously acquired insight. If you get it then enough said. You already have the many related ideas that you need to understand the concept. I'm sorry I just do not see the foundations of the other criticisms. There is no question that the explanation of an actual experiment and the honest reporting of the results would be more inspiring if something promising was achieved, but the usual academic style paper does not meet that standard of achievement. The effort to award yourself for belonging to a group who have mastered the style of the academic paper but who have not actually contributed anything substantial through their papers is nothing to be proud of. And that is why most of the criticisms that I received were criticisms of style and of empty blanket dismissals that found nothing in my paper actually worth criticizing. If you had made a little effort you might have actually contributed something. Stan at least created a curiosity of deconstruction. I thought I got an interesting challenge about the limitations of text based AGI but it turned out to be part of an argument that computer programs could not make inferences! And the criticism that my program would not be fast enough may be correct but it was the first thing I said in my summary. That was what I was alluding to when I pointed out that complexity is a major problem. There was not one good criticism of my summary. None of you actually seemed to understand what I was saying. I find that hard to believe but the empty criticisms leave me with that conclusion. So even though I was perturbed by the insipid pettiness of some of the criticisms, there is no question in my mind that they represent the rejection by an audience who were truly unable to understand what I was talking about. The only question is whether I can turn these ideas into some kind of working model.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
