Re: The Avatar (was): Learning [was Basic Aspects of AI]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (LocalFolk) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Larry:
>>Agreed. And Longley has been told 100 times by 100 posters in 100
>>different ways (perhaps I exaggerate slightly) that nobody is going
to
>>"learn" a subject without first being convinced in clear language
*why*
>>they need to learn the subject. Instead, we get Professor Irwin
Corey.
>
><my 1,000 word response proactively self-snipped>
>
>You need to learn the subject so you can drop your "pack mentality"
>attacks and be clearer, yourself.

To say "Nobody is going to 'learn' a subject without ..." is not the
same as saying "Everybody is going to 'learn' a subject with..." For
instance, it could just as well be the case that "Nobody is going to
'learn' a subject with." But of course we both understand that it is
implied that some people would learn "with" or I wouldn't have
bothered to make the statement.

If you had snipped my statement, so that your statement stood alone,
then it would be different. Your statement would just be telling me I
need to learn something.

In any case, I'm not one who is a candidate to learn the subject if
provided a reason. That is because I've redundantly refuted validity
of what you want me to learn without having needed to learn it (i.e.
the only thing I would need to be "clearer" about would be the one
thing I'm addressing which is the language dogma). The refutation is
now up to 5 assertions, none of which have even been
argued. You are welcome, but something tells me this is not your cup
of tea. The assertions only resolve to probabilities anyway, and you
only recently learned that formula. And this would involve another
probability concept as well. I wonder if you even accepted that first
formula since you never acknowledged. That was kind of strange too.
Usually when someone asks me to explain something and I do, they say
thanks or no thanks at least "Oh." Well, no reason making a mountain
out of a molehill, especially since I explained in an entertaining way
(about the tax forms). Well I had posted the straight formula 3 times
and it was already redundant and pretentious to post a math formula so
much.

FYI, if I were a candidate to learn, your reason would not be clear
because "pack mentality" is ambiguous. For instance, say it's a
"given" that three people must decide for or against Longley. At least
2 people would need to decide the same. If 10 people, then about 6 the
same, and 4 the same. Is that what you mean by "pack?" Or is there
some commonality between those who are "against" that makes the "pack"
analogy work? How about the contrary case of too lopsided evoking
sympathy? That has influenced me. Do you think I'm imitating behavior?
Anyway, whatever it is, it is unstated and that's what I mean by
ambiguous. I might be addressing something you never intended.

But if I were a candidate, and it were not ambiguous, it would not be
convincing because it is simply too short. Given that someone was
going to spend years of study (as Longley suggests are required), that
would merit a lot of pages and a lot of factual support. But let's say
one could satisfy Longley's requirement with just a week or two of
study. That would still merit a couple of pages, then some followup,
perhaps a few exchanges to be convinced. There would probably be a
list of objections you would be expected to overcome. But let's say
one hour of reading would satisfy Longley's requirement. Now you're
just talking one page or less, but in clear, unambigous language, and
you might expect a question or two. This is how it works in the
consulting field. I don't email a sentence
to a client, and they rush off to spend a week at my seminar. Well,
there's such a thing as a preliminary explanation, like a 10 minute
phone call, but then the full explanation would still be required.

BTW, agree with "attacks." I'd say "provocation" but still plead
guilty. I said I would not provoke unnecessarily, but it seems I have.
It may take a while to learn how to neutralize without provoking. I
can see it's going to be a judgment call each time, and I'll never
achieve objectivity towards it, being as invested as I am already. I
really don't want to cause Longley pain. I'm convinced he's in very
sad shape, whatever that may mean.

Hope this helps and doesn't just piss you off some more. Remember it's
not my fault how your phrased your post. My choice is either to
correct it or ignore you (which I think is worse). If I don't explain
precisely in this group, creates 20 messages of absurdly childish
argumentation (not from you). I've been reading your posts. I know you
are a mature programmer and I assume equality. Just turns out our two
exchanges so far were at my home field. I'd really hate to lose you as
a critic because I'm using this group to test ideas, among other
things. You know I've probably posted 50 or so on-topic ideas original
to the time period I've been here, and only a few have even been
questioned? I keep a list but haven't counted them up. Well, I do like
to piss people off just enough to motivate them to criticize (giving
away a secret there). I have a good reason about these ideas.

Oh, while on that subject another thought occurred. You know how
Longley demands to always be taken at face value and never
acknowledges his implications? Well, I always do. I realize that every
time I say "the new posters go through stages with Longley" it is an
implied insult to you. Why should I deny it? You're no dummy. We both
know you are one of the "new" posters (at least this year) and my
statement presumes something that you will do or think. Hey, I'd be
insulted.

Well, you know I can't cure that. I would really like to, but can't
see any way without stopping posting in this group. But maybe I could
lessen it by explaining my point of view.

Put yourself in my shoes. I was a new poster, I went through the
stages. Old posters have said they did. If you read real old messages,
other people did too. Now, with you (and Patty) we see the same
patterns of the stages. I mean, who has been nicer to Longley than
Patty? She gave him the upper hand. She read his site. She discussed
his favorite things. She ignored admishments. She was professional,
patient, non-confrontational. Etc. Etc. Yet, see what Longley posted
this morning or maybe just yesterday:

"You seem to be writing (ignorant) nonsense again Patty - have you
retained nothing over the past couple of months?"

Well, I can't speak for Patty either. But how long do you think an
ordinary and prudent person would assume Patty would take this
(regardless of how she does in fact take it). And how about those
"couple of months." What would that represent in the mind of an older
poster who found Longley to be worthless at some later point?

Well, I think you have only said you would read the web page. So who
knows. Maybe you will see the "truth" (of whatever part interests you)
and become a lifetime member. I just judge the probability as very
slight since nobody has so far. So when I say this about new posters,
it's really a probability statement, very high in my mind, but of
course there are exceptions to everything and I realize I cannot
predict what will go on in your mind or be your judge of whether you
are indeed making the right decisions. I could argue them with you
though. <g>.

And don't forget when you encourage Longley you encourage the spam
which I hate. But I am ignoring that completely in favor of your
opinion of it. And don't forget that I gave your opinion value on the
"moral judgement" issue and did act on it - you didn't see me continue
that argument. And in fact I have dropped it altogether now, and you
were one person who made me question my beliefs. Well, all this is
just saying that I hope whatever damage I'm doing re: your opinion of
me, maybe it can be cured at some future date. If there is some
particular phrasing or mechanisim that I use that is particularly
annoying, let me know, and I'll bet I can do something about that.

Sorry I didn't have time to write a shorter post. I've been meaning to
raise these issues with you. Now I have.

Larry

P.S. What kind of "PhD" are you?

>
>-IC, PhD