From: Mu In Taiwan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Oct 13 2009 - 16:28:49 MDT
JC: "I would like to issue a challenge to all those who disagree with me,
except for "Mu In Taiwan" for reasons that will become obvious. Read the
above quotation and try to make the case that the remark isn't as
incredibly mind numbingly stupid as it sounds. Come on, Mu In Taiwan
thinks I'm wrong just as you do, so stick up for the man, try to put
some polish on that turd and reveal it's inner brilliance! It would be
most amusing to see you try."
I noted in my previous post that you:
- fail to define the vocabulary you use
- fail to provide proofs for the extremely strong claims you make about all
future designs for AGI
and also that:
- you selectively quote small pieces of other authors' text - with childish
insults added - instead of presenting a defence of the arguments you are
putting forward, or a sane deconstruction of someone else's arguments, or a
full response to the points that people make against your ideas.
- you fail to respond to requests for evidence to support your claims.
I note that once again, you have done these things. Regarding my request for
*your* evidence to support *your* extremely strong claim about *your
problem*, which *you* describe as being the most significant issue for AI.
Responding to my request for evidence by describing it as a 'turd' and
'incredibly mind-numbingly stupid', and attempting to exclude me from
follow-up responses, does not qualify as any reasonable kind of response.
That kind of response is what I would expect from a primary school child.
Look, please stop posting this stuff to this mailing list if you're not
prepared to discuss it seriously - that is, with definitions, evidence, and
so on. In particular, why on earth don't you welcome people criticizing
your ideas and asking you for further detail/evidence about them?
For example, I don't agree that Randall's suggested interpretation of your
words is correct; but I am glad he offered his suggestion, which was
contrary to my own interpretation.
Also: Please stop misrepresenting the claims of dead researchers (e.g. AT,
1936) - it is quite sufficient to provide a link to the paper and allow
people to reach their own conclusions. Similarly, please pay more attention
to peer-reviewed results which you are being presented with.
Randall: Regarding the extropian mailing list. I am unfamiliar with it, and
I don't believe in giving credit to outlandish and unsupported claims on the
basis of mailing list membership. If it has been around since the 1990s,
(wow... that's coming up on 20 years ago) it must have achieved amazing
things over the last two decades of effort. Can someone briefly summarize
the main achievements of that forum for me? I looked up Google, but all I
found were some posts about "Elvis sightings", "Cold Fusion", "Remote Mind
Control" and "Precognition on TV".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:04 MDT