View Single Post
  #435  
Old 01-03-2018, 03:43 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripler View Post
I don't know Computer Science, and I don't know the criteria for 'Turing Complete.' But I do know the argumentative redirects of an obstinate royal diva when I see one, and later today I intend to drag your ass back through your nuclear nonsense to get some answers out of you. Case in point, your wild assumptions applied through Fermi "estimates" have reduced respectable Fermi estimates to nothing more than "WAGs" (wild assed guesses). Poor Enrico is spinning in his grave. I will get to those nuclear inconsistencies this afternoon.
I'm enjoying your posts, Tripler, and hope you have time to give us more. As for not knowing computer science, no worries. SamuelA doesn't, either. That's the nice thing about posts that he can't delete that remain a permanent testament to that fact. For instance, herewith a brief history of our discussion about what "computational" means.

First, SamuelA makes the clearly false statement that all cognitive processes are computational.

When told he is wrong, he asks for "MIT papers" on the subject. Why MIT? But never mind -- I give him one of Kosslyn's papers, and explain it.

Then over here, I quote the late Jerry Fodor, a major figure in cognitive science, flatly contradicting SamuelA's blithering nonsense.

It gets better -- much better! Now SamuelA shows the world that he doesn't understand what "Turing complete" means and thinks it's equivalent to truth tables, calls me a moron, and dismisses Fodor as just a "philosopher" that I'm "parrotting"!

And then it really turns hilarious when it gets down to what the term "computational" actually means in the formal context of computer and cognitive sciences. SamuelA concocts an other-worldly nonsensical definition here. I am then duly warned in that same post, in a line that will go down in SDMB history: Don't challenge a computer engineer on their understanding of computation.

And, neatly doubling down on the stupid, he even asserts that he doesn't give a rat's ass (his own words) about things like symbol processing, which turns out to be part of the fundamental essence of computation in computer science.

Flailing around with uncertainty now about what the word "computation" really means, SamuelA finally looks it up in Wikipedia, and creates a new post to crow "I was right! I was right!". Now here's the thing, folks, and pay close attention: the Wikipedia article -- which even quotes Jerry Fodor on the subject -- says the exact opposite of SamuelA's claims. I don't know if he ever figured out that the sentences he cribbed out of Wikipedia actually prove he was wrong, but if he did, it was too late to delete the post!

And now, folks, the grand finale. Challenged with the above evidence, our self-professed "expert" in computer science and brilliant "computer engineer" who warns lesser mortals not to challenge his indomitable intellect, claims he was "fuzzy" on the meaning of "computation" because it was all "from a CS course 10 years ago"! But the proper meaning of the term is so fundamental to computer science that no one of any competence could not know its formal meaning! And this was the whole basis of that whole multi-page discussion, going back to the first point I made at the beginning of this post.

We've long known what an annoying obnoxious jerk this guy is, but this is clear proof of how ignorant he is, in case there was still any lingering doubt. BTW, he also doesn't know what "neuroscience" and "cognitive science" mean, or if there's even any difference. Not a blessed clue! But it's all good, because know this: he is brilliant, and he once took a signals course!