From: Jeff Medina (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Oct 27 2004 - 05:47:04 MDT
Something of a meta-message, not on the topic of SL4 but on the topic
of some recent SL4 list gibberish...
So far, a quick glance at Marc's most recent e-mail provides 87
points. And this isn't even taking into account the gibberish in the
earlier "philosophical schemata" e-mail, which would undoubtedly add
quite a few more. Mentafex indeed. How many points does one need
before sniper-moderation comes into effect, exactly?
(#15) 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at
math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for
someone to express it in terms of equations".
["Not only is my theory a theory of FAI, it is also a kind of 'Theory
of Everything'. Of course, fundamental principles are one thing, hard
math is quite another."]
(#18) 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to
Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are
fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
["What I have here is analogous to Einstein's 'Equivalence Principle'
of General Relativity"...]
(#3) 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. (UCxPC=Q)
(#10) 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying
how long you have been working on it.
[Ben asked for a description, reply began "well, a long while back I
had a few ideas..." Possibly contestable. Maybe I'll ask Baez to
(#14) 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly
[Twice, for Universal Cognition and for Personal Cognition. Benefit of
the doubt as to whether the term Qualia is being used properly.]
(#35) 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but
giving no concrete testable predictions.
[If claims that one has formulated a Theory of Everything don't count
here, what would? Exactly.]
Start: negative 5.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:49 MDT