Richard, It is not clear how valuable your 25 years of hard won learning is if it causes you to dismiss valuable scientific work that seems to have eclipsed the importance of anything I or you have published as "trivial exercises in public relations" without giving any reason whatsoever for the particular dismissal.
I welcome criticism in this forum provided it is well reasoned and without venom. But to dismiss a list of examples I give to support an argument as "trivial exercises in public relations" without any justification other than the fact that in general a certain numbers of published papers are inaccurate and/or overblown, is every bit as dishonest as calling someone a liar with regard to a particular statement based on nothing more than the knowledge some people are liars. In my past exchanges with you, sometimes your responses have been helpful. But I have noticed that although you are very quick to question me (and others), if I question you, rather than respond directly to my arguments you often don't respond to them at all -- such as your recent refusal to justify your allegation that my whole framework, presumably for understanding AGI, was wrong (a pretty insulting statement which should not be flung around without some justification). Or if you do respond to challenges, you often dismiss them as invalid without any substantial evidence, or you substantially change the subject, such as by focusing on one small part of my argument that I have not yet fully supported, while refusing to acknowledge the major support I have shown for the major thrust of my argument. When you argue like that there really is no purpose in continuing the conversation. What's the point. Under those circumstance your not dealing with someone who is likely to tell you anything of worth. Rather you are only likely to hear lame defensive arguments from somebody who is either incapable of properly defending or unwilling to properly defend their arguments, and, thus, is unlikely to communicate anything of value in the exchange. Your 25 years of experience doesn't mean squat about how much you truly understand AGI unless you are capable of being more intellectually honest, both with yourself and with others -- and unless you are capable of actually reasonably defending your understandings, head-on, against reasoned questioning and countering evidence. To dismiss counter evidence cited against your arguments as "trivial exercises in public relations" without any specific justification is not a reasonable defense, and the fact that you so often result to such intellectually dishonest tactics to defend your stated understandings relating to AGI really does call into question the quality of those understandings. In summary, don't go around attacking other people's statements unless you are willing to defend those attacks in an intellectually honest manner. Ed Porter P.S. This is my last response in this thread. You can have the last say if you so wish. -----Original Message----- From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 9:58 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research] Ed Porter wrote: > >> RICHARD LOOSEMORE=====> You have no idea of the context in which I made > that sweeping dismissal. > If you have enough experience of research in this area you will know > that it is filled with bandwagons, hype and publicity-seeking. Trivial > models are presented as if they are fabulous achievements when, in fact, > they are just engineered to look very impressive but actually solve an > easy problem. Have you had experience of such models? Have you been > around long enough to have seen something promoted as a great > breakthrough even though it strikes you as just a trivial exercise in > public relations, and then watch history unfold as the "great > breakthrough" leads to .... absolutely nothing at all, and is then > quietly shelved by its creator? There is a constant ebb and flow of > exaggeration and retreat, exaggeration and retreat. You are familiar > with this process, yes? > > ED PORTER=====> Richard, the fact that a certain percent of theories and > demonstrations are false and/or misleading does not give you the right to > dismiss any theory or demonstration that counters your position in an > argument as > > "trivial exercises in public relations, designed to look > really impressive, and filled with hype designed to attract funding, which > actually accomplish very little" > > without at least giving some supporting argument for your dismissal. > Otherwise you could deny any aspect of scientific, mathematical, or > technological knowledge, no matter how sound, that proved inconvenient to > whatever argument you were making. > > There are people who argue in that dishonest fashion, but it is questionable > how much time one should spend conversing with them. Do you want to be such > a person? > > The fact that one of the pieces of evidence you so rudely dismissed is a > highly functional program that has been used by many other researchers, > shows the blindness with which you dismiss the arguments of others. Ed, You are misunderstanding this situation. You repeatedly make extremely strong statements about the subject matter of AGI, but you do not have enough knowledge of the issues to understand the replies you get. Now, there is nothing wrong with not understanding, but what happens next is quite intolerable: you argue back as if your opinion was just as valid as the hard-won knowledge that someone else took 25 years to acquire. Not only that, but you go on to sprinkle your comments with instructions to that person to "open their mind" as if the were somehow being closed-minded. AND not only that, but when I display some impatience with this behavior and decline to write a massive essay to explain stuff that you should be learning for yourself, you decide to fling out accusations such as that i am arguing in a "dishonest" manner, or that I am dismissing an argument or theory just because it counters my position. If you look at the broad sweep of my postings on these lists you will notice that I spend much more time than I should writing out explanations when people say that they find something I wrote confusing or incomplete. When someone starts behaving rudely, however, I lose patience. What you are experiencing now is lost patience, that is all. Richard Loosemore ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=71862786-a6381b
