Mark Waser:Several comments . . . .
First, this work is hideously outdated. The author cites his own reading
for some chapters he produced in 1992.
His claim that the dominant paradigms for studying language comprehension
imply that it is an archival process is *at best* hideously outdated -- if
indeed it was *ever* true (arguably, it is not).
Second, look at the names he quotes -- Glenberg and Robertson or Roth. Are
these names that are currently recognized and touted in the field of
language comprehension? Emphatically NOT!
POINT ONE - Please get yourself current before you attempt to argue
anything. You should also assume that anything that hasn't caught on in 15+
years probably has not caught on for a reason.
Third - your personal insistence on a linkage between imaginative and images
is not supported anywhere. We all agree that imaginative models/simulations
are necessary. The vast majority of us disagree that the perceptions for
those models are necessarily visual.
POINT TWO - The fact that you can't recognize that this paper does NOT
support your fanciful point indicates that you *really* do not have a handle
on all this. Yours is simple unadulterated bigotry. You only see what you
already believe to be true and cannot even recognize when what you're
seeing/looking for is not there.
Give me some current references that support your point -- someone like
Bloom, Chomsky, Pinker, Tomasello, Goldberg, or Jackendoff (you *do*
recognize those names, don't you).
POINT THREE - Insisting "IS TOO, IS TOO, IS TOO" with obsolete resources
(that you are misunderstanding anyways) is not going to convince anyone.
PLEASE, stop being a bigoted troll. Read something from *this* century and
try to find a clue.
*************************
Dear Mark,
Since this is otherwise going to be a recurring problem...
You remember how when you were having your idea about a Friendliness Charter
for superAGI's, (or somesuch), you got v. excited and felt much more
well-disposed towards the world? It is exciting to have ideas...
I remember you saying you had an idea or two about building an AGI. Why
don't you put your manly derriere on the line and expose those ideas to the
world here? (You did say recently you believed in doing that).
Then you'll find that this mid-life crisis of yours will start to pass, and
you won't need to vent your deep, personal frustration as you so obviously
do on me and others.
Only, I suggest, make sure that your ideas are about the real and not an
entirely fictional world this time. And don't argue - as you do above -
wholly from ..er.. authorities (you're the guy who thinks Minsky is
scientifically respected, right?) Argue from evidence and examples.
In future, let's spare the group. Waser to Waser: "killfile:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]" I certainly won't bother reading your posts.
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=103754539-40ed26
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
