NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2014,18:25) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 19 2014,16:48) | We've already established that Gary includes nothing of Trehub's neural systems in his "model" code, and Trehub's block diagram is not a model. Again, if Gary wishes to dispute this, all he need do is provide the file and line number in his late 2012 code that shows a Trehub neural system implementation.
And we've already established that Gary's implementation of Heiserman stops short of the level (gamma) that Heiserman applied "good guess" to describe its operation. Again, if Gary wishes to dispute this, all he need do is provide the file and line number in his late 2012 code that shows a Heiserman gamma robot implementation.
Gary has circled back around to the same bogus assertions he started with here. As I argued early on, citing competent people does not confer competence on the work in which they are cited. Gary is right back to trying to dishonestly claim that his work is made notable because of the work of others. The old line about reviews applies: it is good and original, except that what is original is not good, and what is good is not original. |
And for the record I said exactly:
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2014,14:43) | | In my opinion you came to this forum expecting to have fun playing hero by helping to mock and ridicule someone or something out of science. You did not expect something very well researched that even includes the best of UMass legend Arnold Trehub, who actually did have insight into how human (and other) intelligence works. I was lucky to have early-on found a copy at the Odyssey bookshop (across the street from Mount Holyoke College) when it was brand new to cognitive science. I must have spent a couple thousand hours modeling from it. David Heiserman based models that came before helped make sense of what is most important to know about how the Arnold Trehub model all together works. |
|
And for the record, you have been shown to be wrong regarding those claims.
You seem to have highlighted the wrong words. You should have bolded 'includes', which is one of the many material falsehoods you have uttered. Likewise 'helped make sense'.
And others you will doubtlessly fail to figure out by yourself.
You pathetic moron.
|
