NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 13 2016,03:42) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 12 2016,23:00) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 12 2016,21:49) | Oh and a grmamar tip. Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
www.i-programmer.info/news/105-artificial-intelligence/9981-neural-networks-a-better-speller.html |
That's about spelling, not grammar. That example is a classic - I have used versions of it in classes for years. Nonetheless, it doesn't excuse your writing: you misuse words, mangle your grammar, and drop non sequiturs all over, all of which too often makes what you write uninterpretable. Brains can handle misspellings (if the first and last letters are correct), but not the types of clangers that lard up your writing.
| Quote | | Tehre is on seccine jrnoaul pbhulsiehd "foold troehy" i'ts waht wluod end up nidneeg to be ilcdnued on the Ark wrhee siad toerhy is suseppod to be elnxpleiad awyany. |
See? It's a bit harder when the wording is awkward and the grammar is effed up too. |
See this:
www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/neural-networks-a-better-speller#post-768581 |
Why? It is not germane to the specifics of this discussion.
We, and most certainly you, would be much further ahead if your only problem was spelling. Your grammar indicates profoundly damaged [or entirely missing-from-action] thinking.
| Quote | | In the model I'm coming up with the "grammar" would be in the interplay between words that describe what to model in the Navigation Network type memory, used to map out the scene being described or interaction of moving parts of something in it. Cortical areas of the brain would recall what we know about how things interact and this way even describe complex machines. |
You're not 'coming up with a model', you're building a fantasy out of bright shiny notions that bear no resemblance nor connection to reality. We have reams of evidence that neither the brain nor the mind work the way you keep trying to describe them as working. Facts first, theories later.
The fact that you can come up with a (misspelled, ungrammatical, incompetently conveyed) descriptive fantasy that is asserted to result in the same end state as is observed in the real world is in no way supportive of the notion that 'therefore the end state was achieved by means of my descriptive fantasy'.
We keep having to point this out to you. Learning is not just a word you misuse, fail to comprehend, it is obviously something that in your world only happens to other people.
| Quote | | But where grammar is a problem you end up with a model of something that never did or ever will happen. |
No, where grammar is lacking, or damaged past any rescue, you don't end up with a model. You end up with an incoherent mess. You do not rise the level of 'model' without a basic grammar. You are equally lacking in syntax and semantics.
| Quote | | We right away know we're missing something. A mistake can become obvious where it makes sense only one other way. |
We know right away that we're missing something when a purported model is based on no relevant facts, contains no logical structure, provides no explanation, makes not predictions, etc.
One of the all but infinite number of problems with your output is that there is 'one other way' in which it makes sense.
It is not a dead parrot. It is not even a poorly constructed effigy of a parrot. It is a pile of guano, none of which was produced by parrots.
| Quote | | Good grammar leads to the cortical areas properly interacting together. |
That is so profoundly confused, exhibits so many deep errors of comprehension and meaning, as to leave one speechless.
| Quote | In an earlier reply:
| Quote | | The machine intelligence from David Heiserman and basic illustration from Arnold Trehub is already an accepted part of cognitive science. The only thing I did is explain how the system works, as it relates to systems biology. |
I could have said "are" but at the level of detail the model I explain requires what they both help evidence is the same thing, not two or more different systems. I had to go with what best describes the thought. Here Arnold and David are pointing to the same thing/circuit (I explain), not two separate things that have to be separately learned. If I had used "are" it would be what I'm trying NOT to describe, which left only one logical choice. I hope you noticed that, though I sense it is more likely you thought it was bad grammar. |
As we have already pointed out, repeatedly, with supporting examples and logical argument:
You parasitize the work of Trehub and Heisermann, your work does not provide any sort of 'explanation', fails to connect to biology or Cognitive Science.
Your presumed familiarity by use of first names is rude, arrogant, snide, and entirely dishonest.
Your ongoing attempts to pretend that your brain fart is fog and that the fog is the bright light of illumination by adopting a stance of talking down to people who are, without exception, your superiors in every form of intelligence, merely confirms that you are not so much wrapped in a shimmering cloak of complete lack of self-awareness so much as you are willfully entangled in it.
Your grammar is objectively bad.
Your spelling is objectively bad.
Your communication skills are objectively lacking -- not so much 'missing in action' as 'never received or installed'.
Your notions are objectively banal, generally false, and to all intents and purposes never what you 'think' they are. Insofar as they are original, or one or two connections removed from the original work of others, they are not explanatory of the phenomena you direct them towards. Insofar as they are not original, they are old news, or, if not old, then completely misunderstood and misapplied.
The problems lie not with us but with you. No matter how much comfort you take from trying to pretend otherwise.
They begin at the pre-verbal level [and let us make passing note at how your ridiculous 'model' fails to handle verbal communication]. They worsen from there.
But really, the only thing required to blow your whole charade of adequacy, let alone superiority, out of the water is your failure to convince a single person after roughly 10 years of touting your effluent across the net. Your coding award is irrelevant to the matter of your notions, your 'theory'. There simply is no support, anywhere, from anyone, for your midden of not-really-ideas.
|
