Post by tkorrovi on Apr 11, 2008 19:03:13 GMT -5
Well in AI Forum, the man who attacked me, started it by accusing me, that I "take Arthur seriously". I'm not even interested in Arthur's system, because it has nothing to do with true AI, so I possibly cannot take it seriously, I don't take it anyhow. I partly agree with critisism against Arthur, in the "mentifex faq", in that Arthur indeed has promoted his system too aggressively, and deserves criticism for that. But i'm not entirely sure that his system is worthless, one cannot make conclusions from how he promotes it, about the usefulness of his system. I think it deserves to be available as some open source software, it may happen to be useful one day for someone for something. Just when it is free from all that promotion and only presented as it is. And, isn't it enough that they wrote this "mentifex faq", why not let forum and wiki administrators to decide, whether they want Arthur, or not. But instead, it seems that someone is all the time after him, i don't see no necessity or reason for that. And, that would inevitably raise a question, what was the real aim of writing the "mentifex faq" and being after Arthur. Please try to understand this, the question is not in whether the "mentifex faq" is right or not, the question is what was the aim of writing it. As it seems, someone who has been after Arthur, is now also after me. But i have not claimed that i "solved AI", all i have said is that my system is a proposed mechanism, no one except an extremely cynical person can find any grandeous claims in that. But that person likely would want that i made grandeous claims, as i likely am not his proper victim, otherwise. And to fix that small issue, this person puts words into my mouth, like he described my system in wikipedia, as "conscious system", which i never claimed that it is (find one place where i said that). I understand well, that claiming to make a conscious system is equivalent to claiming that one knows everything, but that person doesn't like that i understand it, as this doesn't fit to his stereotype. The only thing in which he really could accuse me, was that my theory is not peer-reviewed. Yes it was once accepted as a proposal by FET (this person who claims to be scientist, at first had no idea what FET means) but indeed it is not published. Well, and that i talk about it in forums, instead. Naturally, when it is not published, i talk about it in forums, where else then? It is the accident of the people like me, and i know that there are many others, who have no possibility to publish their work, even if it is a truly unique system, which is implemented in software, and open source software, at that. And that they therefore have to post in forums, and often fight with some unpleasant people who happen to be there, with whom any scientists who sit in their convenient offices, would prefer never to talk a word. Not I, not Arthur, and no other person who is not affiliated with any university or science institution (and i'm not, except only that i graduated one university, in the field of Automatic Control), has no hope whatsoever, that his work would ever be published in any peer-reviewed journal, or as a peer-reviewed conference paper. Some claim that peer-review is anonymous, what a complete nonsense, most likely one should include links to his work, like i should include a link to my SourceForge project, and it possibly cannot be anonymous, any more. Yes and this person thought, that the fact that my work is not peer-reviewed, alone gives him right to offend me as severely as he would like, which means he thinks he has a full right to offend anyone, who is not affiliated with any scientific institution, like they were some kind of higher class, like people with privileges in the medieval society. I'm sorry but, i don't appreciate not a bit, such people, and their privileges. And i have no idea why he associated me with Arthur, i have nothing to do with that person, i don't like him too much, and i don't hate him, i'm not related to that person more than to anyone else. Was it that after the "success" in attacking Arthur, who was the best target for him, he now seeks other persons to attack, widening his justifications of attacking people that way, to people who are less proper targets, or more exactly, who never did, anything bad, to anyone. I think it's enough now, about Arthur, i have nothing to do with that person, and more than that we both cannot publish our theories, mostly for the same reason, i don't truly see any other similarities between me and him, and no one yet could find any. So i think that the violence should stop, let Arthur live, let me to live, and then this still anonymous attacker, may live as well. I think that the only thing which this person achieved with the excess aggressiveness, was to discredit science, though i don't even know whether this person has anything to do with science, as he claims to have, in the internet simply everyone can come and claim some authority, don't believe them so easily. Well, Arthur is no authority, either, the only authority which someone may have, should come from the work which he did.
But i feel pity for the beginners, who are going to start some work, in AI. It's sad to see, how much there would be no appreciation, and how much they have to suffer a primitive violance by people, instead, which they never had to, when they didn't do that work. So such work is more like, a self-punishment, or so it seems. But still, i never regret doing that extremely difficult work, as nothing else could give so much for myself, seeing what i can, and understanding so immensely more. In spite some may try, no one can prevent people from developing, in spite that someone may try to set the boundaries and watch that these would not be crossed, people always go beyond that, this is the power of nature which is immense, so no one can finally be against it, with no matter how much force.
Oh yes, almost forgot. Now some people would likely claim, that i talk about some kind of conspiracy. A question to them, where did i talk about conspiracy? I talk about restrictedness, a human restrictedness, and this is very different from conspiracy. Yes it can rarely take a form of conspiracy, but it is by far not the only thing which may lead to conspiracy. But human restrictedness is simply about some people doing something against others, just because some things don't fit into their world. And what doesn't fit into their world, is that there are people, who are not affiliated with any scientific institution, who have no possibility whatsoever to publish papers, and such people can still do a useful work. The reality clearly shows this, like many open source programmers who have never published any papers about programming, but when the reason is human restrictedness, then no facts can force such people to change their thinking.
"The bottom line is that this work is unknown and poorly written, and has been ignored by the scientific commmunity (nobody ever cited this)." This person has never read more than the first sentence, from my project site. But all what he says comes from the mere fact that the work isn't published, no one usually referres to the work which is not peer-reviewed, in a scientific paper, which means that such work already for that single reason, is ignored by science. Formally it is possible to refer to an open source project, but this not a preferred thing to do. This work is not completely ignored by the "scientific community", I know several scientists who were interested in it, in private emails to me, and no scientist ever, during more than ten years, wrote any negative criticism about my work. Very different from Arthur T Murray, about his work there is such criticism. So this is a full demagogy, all derived from the fact that the work isn't published, which i have no possibilities to do, for the most formal reason that i'm not associated with any scientific institution, and no one would publish my paper even only for that singly reason. And this is also the case concerning many other people, who did some serious work, and wrote some serious software. There though, must not be a peer-reviewed paper written, for open source software to be accepted, for most such software there are no papers written. Open source development is different from a scientific development, in that concern, but this is also something which doesn't fit into the narrow worldview of that person.
And, if anyone ever thinks about my person instead of the thing then, all of that has not anything whatsoever to do with my ego, i will explain why to everyone who cares to listen. Obviously of course it has nothing to do with money, i don't write books, all the software is open source and i could possibly never have any hope to get any money, well, doing things like this is the worse way to make money one may ever conceive. And sure they may say that a perfectly rational person never wasted his time for things like that, well, i didn't even think about creating any AI system or anything in some other circumstances, as there are much better and more useful things to do than that. But because of the circumstances in which most of these who read this post have never been, it happened that i did that work and created that system. And now it is in a stage where it can be developed further also by other people, now already as some particular work in developing some existing thing. For others i think it's good to use the benefits, of work which people rarely are able to do, in the real world, with the reasonable prospects, and all the problems and restrictions which we all have.
OK, enough complaining, would we go ahead?
But i feel pity for the beginners, who are going to start some work, in AI. It's sad to see, how much there would be no appreciation, and how much they have to suffer a primitive violance by people, instead, which they never had to, when they didn't do that work. So such work is more like, a self-punishment, or so it seems. But still, i never regret doing that extremely difficult work, as nothing else could give so much for myself, seeing what i can, and understanding so immensely more. In spite some may try, no one can prevent people from developing, in spite that someone may try to set the boundaries and watch that these would not be crossed, people always go beyond that, this is the power of nature which is immense, so no one can finally be against it, with no matter how much force.
Oh yes, almost forgot. Now some people would likely claim, that i talk about some kind of conspiracy. A question to them, where did i talk about conspiracy? I talk about restrictedness, a human restrictedness, and this is very different from conspiracy. Yes it can rarely take a form of conspiracy, but it is by far not the only thing which may lead to conspiracy. But human restrictedness is simply about some people doing something against others, just because some things don't fit into their world. And what doesn't fit into their world, is that there are people, who are not affiliated with any scientific institution, who have no possibility whatsoever to publish papers, and such people can still do a useful work. The reality clearly shows this, like many open source programmers who have never published any papers about programming, but when the reason is human restrictedness, then no facts can force such people to change their thinking.
"The bottom line is that this work is unknown and poorly written, and has been ignored by the scientific commmunity (nobody ever cited this)." This person has never read more than the first sentence, from my project site. But all what he says comes from the mere fact that the work isn't published, no one usually referres to the work which is not peer-reviewed, in a scientific paper, which means that such work already for that single reason, is ignored by science. Formally it is possible to refer to an open source project, but this not a preferred thing to do. This work is not completely ignored by the "scientific community", I know several scientists who were interested in it, in private emails to me, and no scientist ever, during more than ten years, wrote any negative criticism about my work. Very different from Arthur T Murray, about his work there is such criticism. So this is a full demagogy, all derived from the fact that the work isn't published, which i have no possibilities to do, for the most formal reason that i'm not associated with any scientific institution, and no one would publish my paper even only for that singly reason. And this is also the case concerning many other people, who did some serious work, and wrote some serious software. There though, must not be a peer-reviewed paper written, for open source software to be accepted, for most such software there are no papers written. Open source development is different from a scientific development, in that concern, but this is also something which doesn't fit into the narrow worldview of that person.
And, if anyone ever thinks about my person instead of the thing then, all of that has not anything whatsoever to do with my ego, i will explain why to everyone who cares to listen. Obviously of course it has nothing to do with money, i don't write books, all the software is open source and i could possibly never have any hope to get any money, well, doing things like this is the worse way to make money one may ever conceive. And sure they may say that a perfectly rational person never wasted his time for things like that, well, i didn't even think about creating any AI system or anything in some other circumstances, as there are much better and more useful things to do than that. But because of the circumstances in which most of these who read this post have never been, it happened that i did that work and created that system. And now it is in a stage where it can be developed further also by other people, now already as some particular work in developing some existing thing. For others i think it's good to use the benefits, of work which people rarely are able to do, in the real world, with the reasonable prospects, and all the problems and restrictions which we all have.
OK, enough complaining, would we go ahead?