I seriously meant it to be a friendly statement. Obviously I expressed myself poorly. Jim Bromer
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Brad Paulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This from the guy who only about three or four days ago responded to a post > I made here by telling me to "get a life." And, that was the sum-total of > his comments. What's that smell?!? Ah, hypocrisy! > > Jim Bromer wrote: >> >> I used to think that critical attacks on a person's general thinking >> were reasonable, but I have found that the best way to reduce the most >> hostile and intolerant comments is to be overly objective and refrain >> from making any personal comments at all. Unfortunately, I have found >> that you have to refrain from making friendly or shared-experience >> kinds of remarks as well in order to use this method to effectively >> reduce the dullest sort of personal attacks and the grossest >> exaggerations. >> >> The best method of bringing the conversation to a higher level is to >> get as many people as possible to refrain from sinking to the lower >> levels. >> >> Some of the most intolerant remarks that I received from a few people >> in this group were for remarks where I said that I thought that there >> was a chance that I might have received some divine guidance on a >> logical SAT project that I was working on. At one point, to the best >> of my recollection, Ben Goertzel made the statement that since a >> polynomial time SAT was impossible, discussion of polynomial time >> methods of SAT would be banned from the group! Since polynomial time >> vs non-polynomial time SAT is famously unprovable, Ben's remark seemed >> a little presumptive for someone who was at the time justifying a >> negative reaction toward my statements of a possible personal >> religious experience. >> >> The expression of one's religious beliefs is not strongly related to >> the study of AI, but the study of beliefs is. I feel that my >> presentation of my the issue, of the possibility that the Lord had >> actually become involved with a study of an extremely challenging AI >> related problem was relevant because the study of God cannot be done >> through the conventional science that only sees faith or imagination >> as being in direct opposition to it. You cannot prove or disprove the >> existence of God by discovering a resolution of the p vs np problem, >> but you can examine the nature of religious experience of a person who >> is working on the problem. Some conjectures do not yet reduce to >> repeatable experiments because they first need further refinement and >> an objective appreciation of the frame and nature of the kinds of >> experiments which would be required to examine them scientifically. >> >> We all have the ability to help and guide each other toward achieving >> our personal goals while improving our social skills at the same time. >> It's not rocket science. >> >> Jim Bromer >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> agi >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ >> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >> > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
