Re: cognitive != observable? (project three)

> GS: And what you say above reveals your inability to
> recognize the importance of separating the functions
> of stimuli instead of inventing vacuous pre-behavioral
> events like "pattern recognition."

KD: My what an immense amount of turgid nonsense you managed to
spout. Try thinking instead of just reacting from a need
to defend your indefensible preconceptions, and write that
response again.

GS: There is no need to rewrite it. It is just a bit of normal turgidity
introduced to counteract your sick intellectual priapism.

KD: Pattern recognition is hardly "vacuous", since it is one of
the existing successes of AI research. Like "evolution", it
is reproducable in silicon, and so validated as a workable
explanation for observed events.

GS: The term as used by you in the post to which I was responding was
vacuous since, as I pointed out, it was merely used a synonym for "exerts
some behavioral function."

KD: Until other, alternative explanations receive similar
validation by being reproduced outside the envelope of
living entities, it remains the only tested explanation
of interest to furthering the goals of AI, which is, you
might frequently remind yourself, the subject matter here.

GS: But "pattern recognition" in the non-vacuous sense is not an
explanation, you imbecile, it is the subject matter to be explained. That's
precisely why I criticized your vacuous usage.

"Kent Paul Dolan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message