In article <dc9f054aa3f63f8486fa63f8f4bf9fee@news.teranews.com>,
OmegaZero2003 <OmegaZero2003@yahoo.com> writes

what David Longley did with Frag.htm

There are so many fallacies in that article it is hard to know where to
begin. Most statements presume premeses that are not established.

Just one (of 1,254 examples I have so far discovered):

"The logically anomalous mentalistic (intensional) idioms, 'thinks that',
'believes that' (the verbs of propositional attitude) can have no formal
place in a unified science which can be regimented within the language of
the predicate or functional calculus, and must ultimately, be replaced
(in
science at least), by suitable extensional alternatives."

It is not the case that all of science is regimented within TPC!!
It is not the case that mentalistic idioms are logically anomalous.
It is not the case that such idioms can have no place within a unified
science (witness cognitive neuroscience).


I can think that A or believe that X without any over behavior that
demonstrates A/X. Indeed, I can demonstrate behavior and an extensional
stance such that ~A and ~X seem evident.

In BBS Sep Vol 11(3), Dennett had it right when he maintained intentional
attributes of a system can be a precursor to, a predictor of, and a
co-existent state with overt behavior. Not all the time (i.e., in the
case
of intentional deception), but given the veridical nature of a system
designed as such (such as in use in various AI techniques), such
attributes
are important representational idioms at various levels of description of
mind/brain.

OmegaZero2003 eh?

Ok, now you have shown me enough to see that you're a bullshitter. Not
only do you not have a clue what I'm talking about,

you don't know what
you're talking about either.

For anyone who *is* interested, the html paper at the website was (some
years ago) posted on another site. The internal links and introduction
was the work of that site's editor, not me. As a consequence, the links
don't refer to my site. Nevertheless, all the sections are there in the
one html document. The editor also made a few (erroneous) corrective
edits which I haven't changed back. In one, he's changed the word
"limning" to "limiting" (a famous extract from Quine's "Word and Object"
- where Quine uses an arcane word). However, prior to today, I'd
considered all of this rather trivial and like the inevitable typos and
other bits of unedited poor grammar, I really didn't think it detracted
from what the paper is all about (unless, as seems to be the case here,
one really wants it to).

The other *papers* I've suggested people have a look at are either
papers on "What Works" or "Regimes" available at the website, or last
summer's Government research reports on the outcome of the "Cognitive
Skills" programmes.

What's presented in "Fragments" may not be obvious to those who haven't
ever had to apply psychology (folk or otherwise) in a context in which
one comes up against practical demands to be accountable (beyond just
producing verbal material - be that in natural or artificial). The work
came out of a context which few people ever get to see - the management
of a country's Maximum Security Prison estate (and wider).

Before judging how "fallacious" the paper may or may not be - I strongly
suggest those who feel like being critical take a long and careful look
at the context of the document (ie when it was written, what it is part

of, and *why* it was written. It may also help to look carefully into
the personal background provided - and do some "thinking". Given all of
that - one might indeed wonder why I or anyone else would be posting
such material! What have I been illustrating here over the past 8 months
(& in the years before that?)

As I said at the beginning of this - OmegaZero3003, Michaels, Ozkural
and several other "commentators" haven't a clue what they're talking
about and neither has anyone else who posts as they do.

They are, as
someone else here suggested, all very very sadly ...."incorrect", and
what's so sad about it is that they may never know why.

--
David Longley

Ok, now you have shown me enough to see that you're a bullshitter. Not
only do you not have a clue what I'm talking about,

Because it is pretty much worthless crap relative to C.A.P issues..

Understanding the when, or the context, will not eliminate the incorrectness
and narrow understanding of mind/brain presented therein.

"Anthony Bucci" <abucci@cs.brandeis.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0311081336580.13358-100000@astyanax.cs.brandeis.edu...
I think anyone who's seriously interested in untangling this mess should
read some of these posts. Here's an apposite quote from Lee Lady's 1995
post which Eray points us to:

It would be one thing if it were only an issue of David Longley being a
crackpot --- which he most definitely is, just as much as Ludwig
Plutonium. But he's an educated crackpot, who knows some worthwhile
things, and apparently within the parameters of his own job he's a
competant psychologist. And he's created a computer program which
apparently has some real merit, as far as we can tell from the evidence
available on usenet. And I think that, buried among the bullshit, he
makes some points in this discussion which are worth serious attention.

The next paragraph begins:

I don't claim to be an expert on crackpots (although some people in
sci.psychology consider me one myself, which I guess give me a certain
sort of credential).

Here's a second, apposite quote:

But let me finally agree with David Longley (I think!) by saying that in
the very limited and superficial readings I've done in cognitive
psychology, I'm somewhat bothered by seeing cognitivists take as their
basic primitive notions things which I think one can only consider as
mythical.

Like anyone else, I've filtered what I've read to point out what I feel is
important. As I read this post, Lee Lady is saying he thinks Longley's a
crackpot, he understands that he himself might also be viewed as a
crackpot, and crackpot or not Longley has important things to say which he
(Lady) has a hard time understanding.

Be all that as it may, can we please get back to talking about AI and stop
this meta-talking? I want to make smart machines and boo-hooing about not
liking someone's posts doesn't help. Thanks,

BTW, did anyone go read JMLR? Did you see any mention of "thinking" or
"memory" in the titles? What do you suppose these machine learning people
are up to? Here's the link again: http://www.jmlr.org/papers/v4/

Well there is:
Learning Behavior-Selection by Emotions and Cognition in a Multi-Goal Robot
Task
Sandra Clara Gadanho; 4(Jul):385-412, 2003.

What ML researchers have always been up to is providing a substrate upon
which intelligence (in its various facets) can take root. Providing
different aspects of intelligent-agent capacity (e.g., learning, reasoning
through ambiquity/uncertainty, recovery from local perturbations,
common-sense reasoning, search capabilities etc.) , upon which or in
parallel with agent communications such that mechanisms of co-operation
manifest (e.g., a KQML-like lingua franca). Agents so co-operating (ala
Minsky's SOM agents), may thence result in a synergistic system emulating
and fulfilling the definitions and descriptions of intelligence we use to
describe biological systems we deem intelligent - emergently so or
predictively so.

In article <3e85e49d24c393cea3f3dfc0e52b2323@news.teranews.com>,
OmegaZero2003 <OmegaZero2003@yahoo.com> writes
Ok, now you have shown me enough to see that you're a bullshitter. Not
only do you not have a clue what I'm talking about,

Because it is pretty much worthless crap relative to C.A.P issues..

You haven't a clue what c.a.p issues are - that's clear from what you've

David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> writes:
In article <3e85e49d24c393cea3f3dfc0e52b2323@news.teranews.com>,
OmegaZero2003 <OmegaZero2003@yahoo.com> writes
Ok, now you have shown me enough to see that you're a bullshitter. Not
only do you not have a clue what I'm talking about,

Because it is pretty much worthless crap relative to C.A.P issues..

You haven't a clue what c.a.p issues are - that's clear from what you've

No, Mr Longley -- it is *you* who hasn't a clue what c.a.p issues
are. But I will give you a hint -- most of what is in "Fragments" is
not among those issues.

In article <3e85e49d24c393cea3f3dfc0e52b2323@news.teranews.com>,
OmegaZero2003 <OmegaZero2003@yahoo.com> writes
Ok, now you have shown me enough to see that you're a bullshitter. Not
only do you not have a clue what I'm talking about,

Because it is pretty much worthless crap relative to C.A.P issues..

You haven't a clue what c.a.p issues are - that's clear from what you've
posted so far which is either personal abuse

or a concatenation of half
cocked academic clichés and rhetoric.

Through doing that you're just
sounding like one of the other enthusiasts who's been only too happy to
jump on the vacuous bandwagon of "cognitivism". It doesn't cache out to
anything!

snip

Understanding the when, or the context, will not eliminate the
incorrectness
and narrow understanding of mind/brain presented therein.


How would you know? It doesn't sound like you know anything useful about
either!

snip more bullshit from this anonymous, pompous, self-opinionated ass
--
David Longley

David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> writes:
In article <3e85e49d24c393cea3f3dfc0e52b2323@news.teranews.com>,
OmegaZero2003 <OmegaZero2003@yahoo.com> writes
Ok, now you have shown me enough to see that you're a bullshitter. Not
only do you not have a clue what I'm talking about,

Because it is pretty much worthless crap relative to C.A.P issues..

You haven't a clue what c.a.p issues are - that's clear from what you've

No, Mr Longley -- it is *you* who hasn't a clue what c.a.p issues
are. But I will give you a hint -- most of what is in "Fragments" is
not among those issues.

In article <bokacb$8tb$1@husk.cso.niu.edu>, Neil W Rickert
rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> writes
David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> writes:
In article <3e85e49d24c393cea3f3dfc0e52b2323@news.teranews.com>,
OmegaZero2003 <OmegaZero2003@yahoo.com> writes
Ok, now you have shown me enough to see that you're a bullshitter.
Not
only do you not have a clue what I'm talking about,

Because it is pretty much worthless crap relative to C.A.P issues..

You haven't a clue what c.a.p issues are - that's clear from what you've

No, Mr Longley -- it is *you* who hasn't a clue what c.a.p issues
are. But I will give you a hint -- most of what is in "Fragments" is
not among those issues.


But some of it clearly *is*, even to you, and the fact that you think
most of it is not may well just be a function of your ignorant & pitiful
understanding of what you think you've read. In this way you're very
much like Michaels & Ozkural. All of you have distorted and

misrepresented the views of others and refused to accept evidence that
you are mistaken.

All of you are more concerned to appear right than
actually learn anything worthwhile.

All of you indulge in nefarious
rhetoric as if science is some sort of personal competitive game between
individuals rather than between ignorance and knowledge.

You're going to have to decide sometime - do you want to behave in the
same way as Ozkural, Michaels and the new 'anonymous' idiot on the block
(and there's no end of them - they *are* all too common) - or are you
going to take time out, reconsider and listen and learn from someone who

actually knows more than you when it comes to what's relevant here (like
it or not).

I'm getting really tired of your bullshit.

--
David Longley

In article <91db2e2b7b087423316087e5ca581333@news.teranews.com>,
OmegaZero2003 <OmegaZero2003@yahoo.com> writes

"Anthony Bucci" <abucci@cs.brandeis.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0311081336580.13358-100000@astyanax.cs.brandeis.edu...
I think anyone who's seriously interested in untangling this mess
should
read some of these posts. Here's an apposite quote from Lee Lady's
1995
post which Eray points us to:

It would be one thing if it were only an issue of David Longley being
a
crackpot --- which he most definitely is, just as much as Ludwig
Plutonium. But he's an educated crackpot, who knows some worthwhile
things, and apparently within the parameters of his own job he's a
competant psychologist. And he's created a computer program which
apparently has some real merit, as far as we can tell from the
evidence
available on usenet. And I think that, buried among the bullshit, he
makes some points in this discussion which are worth serious
attention.

The next paragraph begins:

I don't claim to be an expert on crackpots (although some people in
sci.psychology consider me one myself, which I guess give me a
certain
sort of credential).

Here's a second, apposite quote:

But let me finally agree with David Longley (I think!) by saying that
in
the very limited and superficial readings I've done in cognitive
psychology, I'm somewhat bothered by seeing cognitivists take as
their
basic primitive notions things which I think one can only consider as
mythical.

Like anyone else, I've filtered what I've read to point out what I feel
is
important. As I read this post, Lee Lady is saying he thinks Longley's
a
crackpot, he understands that he himself might also be viewed as a
crackpot, and crackpot or not Longley has important things to say which
he
(Lady) has a hard time understanding.

Be all that as it may, can we please get back to talking about AI and
stop
this meta-talking? I want to make smart machines and boo-hooing about
not
liking someone's posts doesn't help. Thanks,

BTW, did anyone go read JMLR? Did you see any mention of "thinking" or
"memory" in the titles? What do you suppose these machine learning
people
are up to? Here's the link again: http://www.jmlr.org/papers/v4/

Well there is:
Learning Behavior-Selection by Emotions and Cognition in a Multi-Goal
Robot
Task
Sandra Clara Gadanho; 4(Jul):385-412, 2003.

What ML researchers have always been up to is providing a substrate upon
which intelligence (in its various facets) can take root. Providing
different aspects of intelligent-agent capacity (e.g., learning,
reasoning
through ambiquity/uncertainty, recovery from local perturbations,
common-sense reasoning, search capabilities etc.) , upon which or in
parallel with agent communications such that mechanisms of co-operation
manifest (e.g., a KQML-like lingua franca). Agents so co-operating (ala
Minsky's SOM agents), may thence result in a synergistic system emulating
and fulfilling the definitions and descriptions of intelligence we use to
describe biological systems we deem intelligent - emergently so or
predictively so.


What's "intelligence"?

What's a "facets of intelligence"?

What's "reasoning, learning"?

What's "common sense"?

What's "a synergistic system emulating and fulfilling the ........."

Oh I can't be bothered - what you've strung together there is just more
of the same bullshit - you should peddle this in some science fiction
group where others might like to play this sort of game - ........

--
David Longley

Academic eh!? I have built more useable AI functionality, and have written
more about neurochemistry than you will ever read in your life.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 18:51:12 GMT, "OmegaZero2003"
OmegaZero2003@yahoo.com> in sci.cognitive wrote:


"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3fad3079.11079662@netnews.att.net...
On 8 Nov 2003 08:58:59 -0800, erayo@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural exa)
in sci.cognitive wrote:

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message
news:<3fac0a82.511062@netnews.att.net>...
I wonder if being wrong is equivalent to being a kook. I haven't
changed my views in 21 years and I'm still posting the same things I
posted four and five years ago albeit to audiences with different
demographics. And I've never had problems discussing fundamental
differences with those who have no problems discussing them. Does that
make me summa cum kook?

No, but if you had posted 8000 links to a terribly written article
which assumes the truth of a debunked theory on the same newsgroup(s)
in addition to that you would most certainly become a kook. That's
what David Longley did with Frag.htm

You know I've had occasion to read through frag.htm and whatever my
opinion of the writing style, I managed to learn some very interesting
things as a result. I don't agree with its conclusions but so what? I
hardly ever read anything I agree with that I didn't write. And I have
to say that most of those who post to the usenet - especially extended
articles - have terrible writing styles including some on the present
groups. Composition is a pretty advanced intellectual skill and it is
rarely well practiced. So I really don't have any idea why this labels
one a kook. David thinks he has something important to say and he
promotes it. What I haven't noticed is him railing against the fates
every time someone disagrees with what he's written. He just seems to
move on to another conversation.

That's the style of physics kooks who refute relativity on sci.physics
regulary. Read the article I wrote about kooks on c.a.p. fortunately
there is a good definition for kook on the web which I used.

Well, you see here I am one of those kooks. I have a problem with
those who maintain that disagreeing with some aspects of relativity
and its interpretations or with quantum theorist's interpretation of
quantum effects ipso facto marks one as a kook. What I definitely find
is that frustrated proponents and advocates of such theories resort to
charges of kookery and crackpottery when they get irritated and upset.

It is not a question of disagreeing with a theory in whole or in part. It
is a question of whether the theory, and the surrounding exogeneous facets
of that theory, are too narrow to be able to draw valid conclusions, to
predict *all* facets of processes known to be associated with the theory,
and whether such even constitutes a theory. Longley would do well to read
some Bateson so he can pull himself up by his bootstraps out of the mental
abyss he has created for himself.

I usually find myself much too busy trying to iron out my own ideas to
spend much time worrying about what other crackpots are up to. If
theories are wrong or short sighted I don't see much point to
debugging them for others who can't see what the problem is. But when
the hue and cry of crackpot and kook are raised there would seem to be
some definite attempt at hysterical intimidation. And I don't see
anyone as qualified to do that apart from religious authorities and
teenage girls in Salem.



The problem is that there are very many more experts on relativity and
quantum theory than there are those who actually know what they're
talking about. And they are usually the first to cry crackpot!

R. Feynman said: "Anyone who claims to know what QM is about, is a liar."
or something to that effect.




Note how skepticism does not mean "it's good to counter experts' views
without substance/evidence/same level of expertise"!!!!!

That is something else most kooks like David Longley do not and cannot
understand.

In article <40e6ae7cea367d9ccdb6d13f7106b838@news.teranews.com>,
OmegaZero2003 <OmegaZero2003@yahoo.com> writes


Academic eh!? I have built more useable AI functionality, and have
written
more about neurochemistry than you will ever read in your life.

That, like just about everything else you write is obvious nonsense. How
could you possibly know?

What do I know about neurochemistry?

I might just as well rant on about how either your passion for crack and
burglary and what you get up to with your Great Dane will get you locked
up sooner or later.... That's *all* you are doing in your posts.

You and others clearly don't know the difference between writing fiction
and science or philosophy.

Playing verbal games like that does nothing
other than demonstrate that you have a penchant for fiction *and*
dishonesty, ie that you put rhetoric and ego above truth..

On the basis of what you have posted here so far I wouldn't take
*anything* you say without a sickeningly large dose of salt!

For those that don't see it - that really isn't an insult - it's just a
dramatic admonishment, and it's one of many which most educated people
would respond with, given the vacuous, but inflammatory nonsense you've
been posting to this and other newsgroups.

It's spam, and what *you* are up to *is* what trolling is all about....

--
David Longley

I usually find myself much too busy trying to iron out my own ideas to
spend much time worrying about what other crackpots are up to. If
theories are wrong or short sighted I don't see much point to
debugging them for others who can't see what the problem is. But when
the hue and cry of crackpot and kook are raised there would seem to be
some definite attempt at hysterical intimidation. And I don't see
anyone as qualified to do that apart from religious authorities and
teenage girls in Salem.

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<3fad5e68.14864720@netnews.att.net>...


I usually find myself much too busy trying to iron out my own ideas to
spend much time worrying about what other crackpots are up to. If
theories are wrong or short sighted I don't see much point to
debugging them for others who can't see what the problem is. But when
the hue and cry of crackpot and kook are raised there would seem to be
some definite attempt at hysterical intimidation. And I don't see
anyone as qualified to do that apart from religious authorities and
teenage girls in Salem.


Actually, Lester, it's not so much the theory, which is easy to
bypass, as the obsessiveness in ramming it down everyone else's
throats. That's what the 8,000 posts are really about. It's really a
bore - and worse, it's used as a technique to disrupt interesting
discussions. Lord, there are so many other interesting things to talk
about.

What I haven't been able to figure out is why he isn't over posting
8,000 times on sci.cognitive pushing his anti-cognitive stance. I
always figured it was because you guys won't even take the time to
listen to him - being mainly non-behaviorist psychologists [I
presume]. On c.a.p., he's just harassing mainly non-psychologists
needlessly.

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message
news:<3fad5e68.14864720@netnews.att.net>...


I usually find myself much too busy trying to iron out my own ideas to
spend much time worrying about what other crackpots are up to. If
theories are wrong or short sighted I don't see much point to
debugging them for others who can't see what the problem is. But when
the hue and cry of crackpot and kook are raised there would seem to be
some definite attempt at hysterical intimidation. And I don't see
anyone as qualified to do that apart from religious authorities and
teenage girls in Salem.


Actually, Lester, it's not so much the theory, which is easy to
bypass, as the obsessiveness in ramming it down everyone else's
throats. That's what the 8,000 posts are really about. It's really a
bore - and worse, it's used as a technique to disrupt interesting
discussions. Lord, there are so many other interesting things to talk
about.

What I haven't been able to figure out is why he isn't over posting
8,000 times on sci.cognitive pushing his anti-cognitive stance. I
always figured it was because you guys won't even take the time to
listen to him - being mainly non-behaviorist psychologists [I
presume]. On c.a.p., he's just harassing mainly non-psychologists
needlessly.