From: Pavitra (celestialcognition@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Oct 12 2009 - 14:33:48 MDT
Eric Burton wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:48 AM, John K Clark <johnkclark@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 "Robin Lee Powell" <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
>> said:
>>> Just for the record, John Clark is something of a local nutjob;
>> And by the way, if I called you a "nutcase" there would have been howls
>>
>> of protest and demands that I be kicked off the list, but I don't mind,
>> I'm a big boy and have been called worse.
>
> I'll call him a damn nutcase.
>
> Robin Lee Powell, where do you get off
Let's put that to a more serious test.
<flame>
Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> John is claiming that the math of Turing and Goedel proves
> things that it simply, clearly, does not in any way actually prove.
> He his making new and novel statements about important mathetical
> theorems that are quite well understood by many, many people on this
> list.
Where is he claiming that? You're making an in-principle testable
accusation here with no citations whatsoever. This is intellectually
dishonest.
> I can't speak for others, but I had to hand-derive both of
> them from scratch as part of my Bachelor's.
ORLY? I'm very impressed at your "mathetical" prowess. Perhaps it would
help if you would post this supposed hand-derivation somewhere:
> When I say that something obviously derives from an important
> mathematical proof, I will *show you the math*.
But obviously you didn't. I wonder why.
> People have tried to explain to you, several times now, that neither
> Turing's work nor Goedel's work implies anything of the kind. I
> don't see why I should spend my time trying again when it's obvious
> you aren't prepared to listen.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason he's not convinced by
your arguments is not that he's unwilling to listen, but because the
arguments are wrong? Are you prepared to listen to him?
> there's no question in my mind that what you're saying
> makes no sense whatsoever.
Oh, I guess not.
> The point is to make AIs that want to be nice to
> humans in exactly the same way that humans tend to want to be nice
> to babies.
Again, you completely fail to live up to your own standards:
> Seperately, until and unless you've actually formalized what you're
> saying ... *as math* ..., it's all just talk anyways.
Ignoring anyone who posted in English rather than Math would result in
... let's see ... _no messages_ to the list. Ever.
</flame>
I am 97% confident that I will not get kicked off the list for that.
Pavitra
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:04 MDT