NoName
Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013
|
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 18 2014,16:55) | Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 18 2014,14:52) | Quote | It only seems to contain metaphors to those who believe they are entitled to change the scientific terminology required for cognitive science to generalization based metaphors from Darwinian theory, which yield the conclusions you expected, in regards to what is intelligent or not. | Rubbish - you are the one abusing standard terminology |
You must have a serious case of swellheadness to believe that you are more of an authority than David Heiserman, Arnold Trehub, designers of IBM Watson, etc..
Like it or not cognitive science requires the terminology that is used, systematics from David Heiserman have for decades been the starting point for more complex cognitive models and the same "confidence" based terminology is in IBM Watson too. I would much rather follow respected experts than be misled by someone who has no experience at all in the field, is just upset because for modeling reality on a computer their theory got dusted by a Theory of Intelligent Design. |
Those luminaries are not, most emphatically not, making the absurd, fantasy-driven, delusional claims that you are. Not a single one.
It is the wildest leap of fantasy for you to assert otherwise.
But let's turn this around -- are you seriously proposing that you know as much, are as capable as, David Heiserman, Arnold Trehub, and the designers of IBM's Watson, etc? Seriously? You can barely manage to spell correctly. Your grammar, syntax, and semantics are all, well, brutally fucked up. Your claims are not founded in evidence, nor are they particularly well supported by the published works of Heiserman, Trehub, Watson's designers, et al. You have yet to produce a clear and coherent link from the work of any of those gentlemen, and likely ladies as well, to any of your premises, logical leaps, or conclusions. It is particularly clear with regard to both premises and conclusions. You have those in abundance, but they are starkly unrelated by chains of logic. Worse, they are all based on free-floating delusions of yours and your own misinterpretation of the work of others rather than evidence. You have not got even so much as a single piece of evidence. Not one. No, your software does not count, for reasons we have been over repeatedly.
Epic unwin, Gary.
And we note that you continue to ignore questions and challenges raised against your effluent. Quelle surprise.
|