[Please repost to sci.psychology if you can. Google doesn't allow me.]

Hello there,

Applause! Applause! Lee Lady is one of the first to observe what a
crackpot David Longley was back in 1995. It has been 8 years now, and
that particular deconstruction of this crackpot is as relevant as it
was then.

Here is a little google flash-back for you to remind once again the
most outstanding net.kook which has infiltrated into these three
groups. Read in awe:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=DDI30D.2q3%40news.hawaii.edu

As you know, the behaviorist infestation never gives up. There is no
trace left of the doctrine, yet this net.kook still pretends that it
is the absolute scientific truth. He has even said that he is
expecting a "behaviorist renaissance". Surprised?

What is behaviorism? For those who do not remember:
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/behaviorism.html

And who is David Longley? Just google him... He is the crackpot who is
destined to destroy c.a.p. More info on his crackpot status:

"Eliminating David Longley" by Eray Ozkural:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=fa69ae35.0310010845.7c9388c0%40posting.google.com

"Longley's moral judgment - 5 posting cases" by Acme Posting:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=47b2ec70.0309052147.9523bb3%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DLongley%2Bgroup:comp.ai.philosophy%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dcomp.ai.philosophy%26selm%3D47b2ec70.0309052147.9523bb3%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D1

"What has Longley got against common sense?" by Bill Taylor:

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=897763235snz%40longley.demon.co.uk&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl1574508464d%26dq%3D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mind%3D29%26as_minm%3D3%26as_miny%3D1995%26as_maxd%3D13%26as_maxm%3D6%26as_maxy%3D1998%26selm%3D6kijve%2524289%25242%2540cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz&as_drrb=b&as_maxd=13&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=19
8&as_mind=29&as_minm=3&as_miny=1995

Which includes the great conversation about Longley being a bot. That
is probably one of the times he was driven away from this newsgroup.
Now the time has come again for Longley-bot.

"8 long years of crackpot reputation!" by Eray Ozkural

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&frame=right&rnum=1&thl=0,1047260493,1046673584,1046444233,1046313164,1046021059,1045967302,1045834442,1045698849,1045610913,1046018985,1045389795&seekm=fa69ae35.0307261121.74df8aa%40posting.google.com#link1

The real sign of a kook is that he hasn't changed his views the
slightest bit in 8 years and still posting the same things again
claiming Cognitive Science is based on fallacy and that there is no
such thing as mind again and again re-iterating the silly skepticism
of "behaviorists" whose ideas were discredited to the extent any idea
can be discredited. I don't think c.a.p or sci.* deserves this. Ask
yourself if this guy is not another Ludwig Plutonium.

"Kooks on comp.ai.philosophy" by Eray Ozkural

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fa69ae35.0309080450.13b20fe0%40posting.google.com&output=gplain

David Longley is the perfect kook and the world needs to know him!

Thanks,

--
Eray Ozkural

The real sign of a kook is that he hasn't changed his views the
slightest bit in 8 years and still posting the same things again
claiming Cognitive Science is based on fallacy and that there is no
such thing as mind again and again re-iterating the silly skepticism
of "behaviorists" whose ideas were discredited to the extent any idea
can be discredited.

[Please repost to sci.psychology if you can. Google doesn't allow me.]

Hello there,

Applause! Applause! Lee Lady is one of the first to observe what a
crackpot David Longley was back in 1995. It has been 8 years now, and
that particular deconstruction of this crackpot is as relevant as it
was then.

Here is a little google flash-back for you to remind once again the
most outstanding net.kook which has infiltrated into these three
groups. Read in awe:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=DDI30D.2q3%40news.hawaii.edu

As you know, the behaviorist infestation never gives up. There is no
trace left of the doctrine, yet this net.kook still pretends that it
is the absolute scientific truth. He has even said that he is
expecting a "behaviorist renaissance". Surprised?

What is behaviorism? For those who do not remember:
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/behaviorism.html

And who is David Longley? Just google him... He is the crackpot who is
destined to destroy c.a.p. More info on his crackpot status:

"Eliminating David Longley" by Eray Ozkural:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=fa69ae35.0310010
845.7c9388c0%40posting.google.com

"Longley's moral judgment - 5 posting cases" by Acme Posting:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=47b2ec70.0309
052147.9523bb3%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DLongley%2B
group:comp.ai.philosophy%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dcomp.a
i.philosophy%26selm%3D47b2ec70.0309052147.9523bb3%2540posting.google.com
%26rnum%3D1

"What has Longley got against common sense?" by Bill Taylor:
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=
897763235snz%40longley.demon.co.uk&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl1574508464d%2
6dq%3D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mi
nd%3D29%26as_minm%3D3%26as_miny%3D1995%26as_maxd%3D13%26as_maxm%3D6%26as
_maxy%3D1998%26selm%3D6kijve%2524289%25242%2540cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz&a
s_drrb=b&as_maxd=13&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=19
8&as_mind=29&as_minm=3&as_miny=1995

Which includes the great conversation about Longley being a bot. That
is probably one of the times he was driven away from this newsgroup.
Now the time has come again for Longley-bot.

"8 long years of crackpot reputation!" by Eray Ozkural
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&frame=right&rnum=1&th
l=0,1047260493,1046673584,1046444233,1046313164,1046021059,1045967302,10
45834442,1045698849,1045610913,1046018985,1045389795&seekm=fa69ae35.0307
261121.74df8aa%40posting.google.com#link1

The real sign of a kook is that he hasn't changed his views the
slightest bit in 8 years and still posting the same things again
claiming Cognitive Science is based on fallacy and that there is no
such thing as mind again and again re-iterating the silly skepticism
of "behaviorists" whose ideas were discredited to the extent any idea
can be discredited. I don't think c.a.p or sci.* deserves this. Ask
yourself if this guy is not another Ludwig Plutonium.

"Kooks on comp.ai.philosophy" by Eray Ozkural
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fa69ae35.0309080450.13b20fe0%40post
ing.google.com&output=gplain

David Longley is the perfect kook and the world needs to know him!

Thanks,

--
Eray Ozkural

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?

"Methodological behaviorism dominated American psychology between 1913, when
Watson wrote his seminal defense, and 1957, when Chomsky published a
devastating review of Skinner's behavioral analysis of language.

GS: Well, no, but the whole URL is so filled with shit, who cares?

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

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.

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 <fa69ae35.0311070933.1fea091a@posting.google.com>, Eray
Ozkural exa <erayo@bilkent.edu.tr> writes
[Please repost to sci.psychology if you can. Google doesn't allow me.]

Hello there,

Applause! Applause! Lee Lady is one of the first to observe what a
crackpot David Longley was back in 1995. It has been 8 years now, and
that particular deconstruction of this crackpot is as relevant as it
was then.

Here is a little google flash-back for you to remind once again the
most outstanding net.kook which has infiltrated into these three
groups. Read in awe:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=DDI30D.2q3%40news.hawaii.edu

As you know, the behaviorist infestation never gives up. There is no
trace left of the doctrine, yet this net.kook still pretends that it
is the absolute scientific truth. He has even said that he is
expecting a "behaviorist renaissance". Surprised?

What is behaviorism? For those who do not remember:
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/behaviorism.html

And who is David Longley? Just google him... He is the crackpot who is
destined to destroy c.a.p. More info on his crackpot status:

"Eliminating David Longley" by Eray Ozkural:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=fa69ae35.0310010
845.7c9388c0%40posting.google.com


"Exa was activated in 18 Jul 1976 and became fully operational as of
1987 when he first interfaced an Atari 800 XL home computer. His next
machine was an Amiga 500 on which he practised more with BASIC and
learnt the miracles of MC68000 Assembly. Exa interfaced with the
hardware directly discovering the pleasing way with which each bit on
the hard obeyed to the wishes of the programmer. He watched the graphics
as they twisted to his command. In due time, he joined Bilkent
University's CS department which partially destroyed the hacking spirit
in him. The instructors were bludgeoning and biological traps manifested
themselves as they came of age. Life of contemplation was a long road to
walk. Nevertheless, the Theory was beautiful and he got weary of the
graphics, and grew an intimate interest in the world of programming
languages and systems. C, C++ and Pascal which he had learnt in his
novice years were not adequate to express his programs. Then came AI and
Algorithms and Parallel Programming. These subjects, each challenged one
in both the thought and the coding. Exa spoke at length on each subject,
yet he realized how cunning an individual is, the subjects do not tend
to dissolve in response to mere talk. So, he sought his lost hacking
spirit and found it in the rising free software movement. He gathered
his hacker's arsenal and worked on creating more soft."


I'm really not sure what Ozkural is up to apart form trying to get
himself noticed and making the most out of it. This is somewhat like
what a now notorious linguist once did on the back of an even more
notorious psychologist back in the late 1950s. Perhaps Ozkural sees
posting to c.a.p as an exercise in this strategy?

From what I can gather, the strategy goes as follows:

Do some work on the back of some other topical research (derived
ultimately from a long chain of developments from Leibniz, Frege,
Ford-Taylorism, Wittgenstein, Russell & Whitehead, Sheffer, Goedel,
Post, Church, Turing, Von-Neumann, Carnap, Shannon etc). Then consider
your options. Do you work for years to be recognised and take your work
forward (which would mean the gruelling process of having to compete
against established figures for funding from the DOD etc), or do you
select one of such figure, already in the limelight, pretend to write a
critical review/evaluation of some salient work that they've done,
ensure that you misrepresent it enough so that most folk wouldn't bother
to read the original, and then stand back, waiting for the gullible to
look at *your* work instead (which for all they know could be a re-write
of what the first guy was actually saying, albeit in a different
"language" or context). Now of course, the alternative could be that the
critic just mis-identified the author as writing in one tradition rather
than another, and just made a 'mistake' - but this is just a caricature
of course.....

But how often does the little 'caricature' happen in reality? How often
do such travesties occur by omission rather than by commission (ie
"unknowingly" as a consequence of "misunderstanding"?) How often does it
happen egregiously?

The answer is that it really doesn't matter. What does matter is that it
can happen. That this can happen in any form is in part what this
extended discussion in c.a.p (and
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Frag.htm and other documents at that site
are all about.

Some might like to look into it for themselves. But by all means read
what Ozkural refers you to as well - alternatively, you may just feel
like hitting the NEXT button <g>.



"Longley's moral judgment - 5 posting cases" by Acme Posting:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=47b2ec70.0309
052147.9523bb3%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DLongley%2B
group:comp.ai.philosophy%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dcomp.a
i.philosophy%26selm%3D47b2ec70.0309052147.9523bb3%2540posting.google.com
%26rnum%3D1

"What has Longley got against common sense?" by Bill Taylor:
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=
897763235snz%40longley.demon.co.uk&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl1574508464d%2
6dq%3D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mi
nd%3D29%26as_minm%3D3%26as_miny%3D1995%26as_maxd%3D13%26as_maxm%3D6%26as
_maxy%3D1998%26selm%3D6kijve%2524289%25242%2540cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz&a
s_drrb=b&as_maxd=13&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=19
8&as_mind=29&as_minm=3&as_miny=1995

Which includes the great conversation about Longley being a bot. That
is probably one of the times he was driven away from this newsgroup.
Now the time has come again for Longley-bot.

"8 long years of crackpot reputation!" by Eray Ozkural
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&frame=right&rnum=1&th
l=0,1047260493,1046673584,1046444233,1046313164,1046021059,1045967302,10
45834442,1045698849,1045610913,1046018985,1045389795&seekm=fa69ae35.0307
261121.74df8aa%40posting.google.com#link1

The real sign of a kook is that he hasn't changed his views the
slightest bit in 8 years and still posting the same things again
claiming Cognitive Science is based on fallacy and that there is no
such thing as mind again and again re-iterating the silly skepticism
of "behaviorists" whose ideas were discredited to the extent any idea
can be discredited. I don't think c.a.p or sci.* deserves this. Ask
yourself if this guy is not another Ludwig Plutonium.

"Kooks on comp.ai.philosophy" by Eray Ozkural
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fa69ae35.0309080450.13b20fe0%40post
ing.google.com&output=gplain

David Longley is the perfect kook and the world needs to know him!

Thanks,

--
Eray Ozkural

--
David Longley

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.



Regards - Lester

"Eray Ozkural exa" <erayo@bilkent.edu.tr> wrote in message
news:fa69ae35.0311080858.7098aeab@posting.google.com...
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

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/

Anthony

hint: Sandra Clara Gadanho

"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.

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.



Regards - Lester

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?