Tony M Nyphot
Posts: 491
Joined: June 2008
|
That's nice, but I'm not bullying you.
I am simply holding you accountable to specific claims you have made that are clearly untrue.
So please, look over this quoted claim of yours from 2 years ago and answer the questions that follow. You have never owned up to this false claim by answering the questions. You routinely make similar claims of positive reviews of your "real-science" "theory". From now on they will be examined and exposed for the untruthful exaggeration they are.
***********************
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 03 2013,22:43) | And for those who did not know, this is one example of how things actually go very well in a forum where cognitive science experts who actually program cognitive systems are present, as well as what happens when a hidebound academic from this forum (Wesley) shows up to top off the thread with link to this one:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....n-lobes
The other forum has long known about my theory writing project. A number of them studied it, which is why Wesley did not surprise anyone there. |
Gary has provided a link to a forum he believes exemplifies "how things actually go very well in a forum where cognitive science experts who actually program cognitive systems are present."
Let's examine that link:
The forum entry was started 2 months ago.
There are 4 "voices" providing 10 posted comments. Gary is obviously one of the posters. As Gary notes, Wes is another. Gary is the source for 5 of the comments, while Wes contributes 1.
The other 4 comments are provided by asimov1 with 3 and Mnemomem with 1.
Questions for Gary:
1. Who are asimov1 and Mnemomeme and what book(s) have they written and/or what cognitive systems have they developed which make them experts in the field of cognitive science as you demand? (Remember, that is the criteria you yourself established as necessary for evaluations your "theory".)
2. How does a forum entry that is only 2 months old, has only 4 replies from only 2 people outside of yourself and Wes, and spans a mere couple of weeks, show that the "other forum has long known about [your] theory writing project"? Seriously...how does 4 comments over 2 months constitute doing well and over a long time?
3. How do you know Wes' post did not surprise them since there are no posts after that from which to draw any such conclusion?
4. If things were going "very well" for you in that forum and if your so-called "theory" had any recognizable merit, why were there not more cognitive science experts commenting on your work? Why haven't you continued to post? In over 2 months since Wes' post, why has no one else commented? (Maybe they were surprised to find out more about your "theory"?
5. Now, let's also look at the post from asimov1 immediately preceding Wes' for an example of the reception Gary's drivel received from a "cognitive science expert" (my bolding):
| Quote | Most AI is virtual, it lives in a digital universe , it is physically embedded in that universe. Whenever the AI is thinking or doing something that virtual universe slows down or stops altogether, the flow of time has ceased....if you get me...now this is way different from reality isn't it !
My thoughts
If thats what your creating then your not really creating AI that would be fit for our universe, just fit for the Matrix you created for it to live in, that Matrix like universe has completely different laws of physics to ours ( and other matrix like universes ), prolly less dimensions, heck even time works in a very different way !....to a certain extent your learning to do the wrong thing in the wrong kind of universe. your not really advancing AI or your understanding of it at all, not really
|
How does this comment from the primary responder exhibit "doing well" for your theory?
--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK
"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"
|
