Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #351  
Old 12-30-2017, 06:05 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Ah -- "something that is similar enough to computation"! IOW, you're right as you always are, provided we redefine "computation" to mean some arbitrary thing that you just thought of, instead of what it actually means in computer science and cognitive science.
By computation I mean a system that discretizes the analog signal to digital at a finite sampling rate and resolution. It then takes that binary number and consults a truth table for the output. (note that the output is determined by both input signals + internal variable(s). Synapses have at least one internal variable, the amount of electric charge. )

It then takes the output of the truth table and converts it back to an analog signal, again at finite resolution and with a finite frequency.

I am saying this hypothetical system could emulate a synapse, and it would not be possible to tell the difference between this system and the "real" brain, so long as the errors this system has are smaller than the errors added by random noise in a "real" synapse.

I could actually build a system that does this, whether it be from a truth table or more realistically I'd represent it as simple equations in computer source code.

Don't challenge a computer engineer on their understanding of computation

Last edited by SamuelA; 12-30-2017 at 06:06 PM.
  #352  
Old 12-30-2017, 06:22 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,911
I'm about to pit the OP for making me aware of your existence...
  #353  
Old 12-31-2017, 01:14 AM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 13,065
Well, I regret being aware of his existence, so I suppose fair is fair.
  #354  
Old 12-31-2017, 01:33 AM
Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 3,093
From this moment forward I will refer to him as Dry Pasta.
__________________
I am a guest
  #355  
Old 12-31-2017, 02:18 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
By computation I mean a system that discretizes the analog signal to digital at a finite sampling rate and resolution.
Well that was useful!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Don't challenge a computer engineer on their understanding of computation
I don't argue with experts. I try to learn from them. But you might notice, SamuelA, that I'm arguing with you. Why is that, do you think? I'll tell you why, SamuelA. It's because it annoys me that you have no idea what you're talking about. I might accuse you of bait-and-switch on the definition of "computation" if I thought you were smart enough to do that just to win an Internet argument, but I don't think you are. I think you genuinely don't understand the topic under discussion.

At the risk of repeating myself, you claimed over here that all cognitive processes are computational, and apparently everybody knows that. I showed you repeatedly why you are flat-out wrong. You are wrong by definition of what the term means in that context.

Now let me ask you some simple questions, SamuelA, because you are so brilliant that we eagerly anticipate the answers:

1. What do you think the academic discipline of cognitive science is about? What is it trying to discover? And,

2. What does the "computational theory of mind" mean in the context of cognitive science? Because remember, SamuelA, this is what you claimed was a done deal, and according to you everyone knows that there's no controversy about this whatsoever. Well, at least you don't. Everyone else actually does. This, SamuelA, is one of many reasons that you're regarded as a pompous fucking moron.

Let me help you out a little, SamuelA, before you try to answer those questions, and I'll keep it simple. The idea of cognitive processes being "computational" borrows from computer science the notion that some mental processes may be Turing-like in that they can be characterized as syntactic operations on symbols. If this is true, then where that applies there must be corresponding algorithms that create semantic interpretations of these symbolic representations, in just the way that computer algorithms do. This has been referred to as "the language of thought". These are important concepts in CTM, but virtually no one believes that they are a complete explanation of cognition, as many mental processes don't appear to fit syntactic-representational descriptions, like when the visual cortex appears to be involved in processing mental images.

You, however, lecture us about signals, voltages, and SNR. It's like trying to explain the methods IBM used to make Watson a Jeopardy champion by saying "it's all done with transistors". It's as if I wanted to attend a course so I could learn how to apply AI to implement a facial recognition system, or build a system for understanding spoken natural language (except that cognitive processes are infinitely more complex) and I ended up in a class listening to some pinhead explain how a transistor works. Why stop there? Really, it's all done with electricity! Anyone who just understands the basic principles can see how it works! This is classic SamuelA reductionism. You're not just in the wrong class, SamuelA, you're lost in the wrong fucking building, but you're either too clueless or too full of yourself to realize it.

Which also appears to be the case with many other topics you've chosen to pontificate on. And that's why I'm done wasting my time discussing this with you. It will in any case leave you more free time to populate the galaxy with autonomous self-replicating factories, the basic principle of which is of course trivial.
  #356  
Old 12-31-2017, 02:24 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Let me help you out a little, SamuelA, before you try to answer those questions, and I'll keep it simple. The idea of cognitive processes being "computational" borrows from computer science the notion that some mental processes may be Turing-like in that they can be characterized as syntactic operations on symbols. If this is true, then where that applies there must be corresponding algorithms that create semantic interpretations of these symbolic representations, in just the way that computer algorithms do. This has been referred to as "the language of thought". These are important concepts in CTM, but virtually no one believes that they are a complete explanation of cognition, as many mental processes don't appear to fit syntactic-representational descriptions, like when the visual cortex appears to be involved in processing mental images.

You, however, lecture us about signals, voltages, and SNR. It's like trying to explain the methods IBM used to make Watson a Jeopardy champion by saying "it's all done with transistors".
Ok. So let's flip the problem in reverse. What if you were talking to an advanced version of Watson, and you can't quite figure out how the machine's responses meet your criteria of "syntactic operations on symbols".

But you have lots of Watsons, and you tear some down. You find at a low level there is nothing but really small transistors that you can model. No near absolute zero q-bits, nothing that isn't ultimately a Turing machine.

So even if you disagree totally and just want to insult me, if you discover a machine is nothing but transistors that form a Turing machine, do you see how you might conclude it must be model-able and emulateable with a Turing machine even if you can't quite see how you get to the machine's advanced behaviors?

That's what I am saying and have been saying. I made a detailed technical argument as to why at a low level, it's nothing but "transistors" (well, truth tables), therefore, while I cannot explain how this works out at a high level to give the interesting things we see, I must conclude based on the overwhelming majority of the evidence that the brain

(1) can be modeled by a very large Turing machine in a way that is indistinguishable from the real thing
(2) can probably be scanned and copied as a result <this doesn't even depend on point 1, actually...>
(3) must be using a really interesting algorithm for (1) to be true and what you are talking about to also be true.

My "overconfidence" you mistakenly thing is incompetence is simply I'm not willing to concede something that is blatantly untrue just to "keep the peace". Maybe I'd shut up if we were in person and you were more physically imposing than me, but that's not how the internet works.

Last edited by SamuelA; 12-31-2017 at 02:29 PM.
  #357  
Old 12-31-2017, 02:30 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
If new, peer reviewed and replicated, evidence came in breathlessly discovering the brain communicates using additional physical channels that are not simply concentration gradients in a few spots and mostly just low frequency electrical pulses, I would change my view instantly.

Last edited by SamuelA; 12-31-2017 at 02:30 PM.
  #358  
Old 01-01-2018, 05:17 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
... So even if you disagree totally and just want to insult me, if you discover a machine is nothing but transistors that form a Turing machine, do you see how you might conclude it must be model-able and emulateable with a Turing machine even if you can't quite see how you get to the machine's advanced behaviors?

That's what I am saying and have been saying. I made a detailed technical argument as to why at a low level, it's nothing but "transistors" (well, truth tables), therefore, while I cannot explain how this works out at a high level to give the interesting things we see, I must conclude based on the overwhelming majority of the evidence that the brain

(1) can be modeled by a very large Turing machine in a way that is indistinguishable from the real thing
(2) can probably be scanned and copied as a result <this doesn't even depend on point 1, actually...>
(3) must be using a really interesting algorithm for (1) to be true and what you are talking about to also be true.

My "overconfidence" you mistakenly thing is incompetence is simply I'm not willing to concede something that is blatantly untrue just to "keep the peace". Maybe I'd shut up if we were in person and you were more physically imposing than me, but that's not how the internet works.
OK, just one more time, violating my own promise to myself to stop wasting time with the inestimable SamuelA. But this is getting funnier as he digs himself in ever deeper, and it's a lazy New Year's day and I'm bored, so what the hell ...

I'm not physically imposing and IRL I would have no desire to punch you in the face, SamuelA. IRL, I'd probably just walk away chuckling to myself. But on the with pitting:

I find it fascinating that you not only don't have a clue about CTM in cognitive science, as you have by now been amply demonstrated -- in the process of which you snidely dismiss one of the great pioneers in that field (which is just **so** typically SamuelA) -- but, remarkably, you really don't seem to understand what a Turing machine is, either. Though I don't know why I'm surprised to see this from the same source that absurdly tries to inform us that the brain consists of "thousands of computational circuits"!

Your ridiculous "signaling" extrapolations have absolutely no relevance to the question of Turing equivalence because they are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for it. They are not necessary because such systems can be built without them -- e.g.- Babbage's Analytical Engine -- and, more significantly, they are not sufficient because systems can be built with them but still not be Turing equivalent -- e.g.- digital circuits in simple electronic calculators.

Such calculators might even be built with exactly the same digital logic gates as computers. It doesn't matter. That in itself doesn't make a calculator a computer and it doesn't make a calculator Turing equivalent. It doesn't make what they do "computational" in the syntactic-representational sense of a Turing machine or CTM, because they lack the ability to implement algorithms and form semantic interpretations of the symbols they are processing, like the ones on a Turing tape. But you can't tell that just by looking at the signals between their switching semiconductors. That is far too low a layer of abstraction to expose the system's computational architecture. The genius of Alan Turing was to cut to the very essence of what a stored-program computer is and what it can and cannot do; the obtuseness of SamuelA is in not understanding it. Perhaps you're just not expressing yourself very well, SamuelA, but I don't see any other plausible ways to interpret it, and as such I'd make the following suggestion: if you did actually pay for a computer science degree, you should ask for your money back.

In the case of the brain, to intelligent people who study this field most of it is still a mystery. But not to you, of course, way over on the left-hand side of that Dunning-Kruger graph. A reasonable person at your junior academic level might think that if they're that much in disagreement with a foundational contributor to the theory of cognition like Jerry Fodor, that maybe it's because there's something that they're not understanding. Not you, of course. There's nothing you don't understand, and you're never wrong. If there's one thing that this pitting accomplishes, I hope it gets you to change your behavior, for your own benefit.
  #359  
Old 01-01-2018, 05:22 PM
Tripler is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: JSOTF SDMB, OL-LANL
Posts: 7,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
OK, just one more time, violating my own promise to myself to stop wasting time with the inestimable SamuelA. But this is getting funnier as he digs himself in ever deeper, and it's a lazy New Year's day and I'm bored, so what the hell ...
Oh man, is he still going? I'd lost track of him after his lackluster meltdown and redirection of the discussion.

Tripler
I've got some reading to do.

Last edited by Tripler; 01-01-2018 at 05:22 PM.
  #360  
Old 01-01-2018, 09:45 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Such calculators might even be built with exactly the same digital logic gates as computers. It doesn't matter. That in itself doesn't make a calculator a computer and it doesn't make a calculator Turing equivalent. It doesn't make what they do "computational" in the syntactic-representational sense of a Turing machine or CTM, because they lack the ability to implement algorithms and form semantic interpretations of the symbols they are processing, like the ones on a Turing tape. But you can't tell that just by looking at the signals between their switching semiconductors. That is far too low a layer of abstraction to expose the system's computational architecture.
Ok, so in between insults, you're saying that a system that can be broken into arbitrary truth tables, is, in your view, not modelable using Turing machines?

Just so we're clear, you know what a truth table is, right? You write down every possible binary number that can be an input to a system and also every possible internal state the system has.

So if a synapse had 10 inputs, and with research you figured out that you only need 8 bits of resolution for the inputs and a single 8 bit accumulator as an internal variable, the truth table for the system would be a series of columns of numbers expressing every possible combination of inputs and internal accumulator state.

Anyways, you are making the claim that you cannot emulate this truth table with a Turing machine?

Are you sure you wish to make that claim? Hypothetically speaking, just for the sake of argument, what if you were totally wrong? If you're wrong about this one thing, which is kind of a bigger error than misspelling a few words, could you be wrong about your assertion that I don't know what I am talking about?

Again, obviously you feel super strongly about your hypothesis that I'm ignorant, I'm just asking if you are even capable of admitting fault, if it turns out to be you're wrong. Because as it so happens, any truth table can be emulated by a turing machine, but I'll have to produce an article clearly stating that. I don't see any reason to bother if you simply are so self assured you're right that you just don't care.
  #361  
Old 01-01-2018, 10:09 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Ok. So let's flip the problem in reverse...
It is a trivial thought experiment to show that flipping something in reverse is the same as doing nothing at all. Just so we're clear, you do know that "flipping a problem" and "doing the problem in reverse" is the same thing? Are you sure you wish to make the claim you want to flip it in reverse?

I mean, anyone can claim to be an expert but I can toss out the names of three University of North Dakota (Fargo, North Campus) papers which prove that flipping a problem in reverse means doing the same problem the same way.

Can you?

See, this is what I've been saying and will continue to say. If you do not understand this simple function, then we are left to doubt your actual competence in both flipping and reversing problems.
  #362  
Old 01-01-2018, 10:10 PM
Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 3,093
I'm beginning to wonder if SamuelA is even a real person. It's as if someone wrote a bot to simulate someone afflicted with Aspberger's Syndrome - like the Aspy2000 or something.

No offense to anyone suffering from Aspberger's, it can be very debilitating. I don't mind poking fun at SameulA, he obviously takes no offense to the insults. But am I still an asshole for being critical? I don't know, it's kind of like that tree falling in the forest question; If I insult someone and they don't care am I really insulting someone? And I still can't be certain that SameulA is 100% human.
__________________
I am a guest
  #363  
Old 01-01-2018, 10:11 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
See, this is what I've been saying and will continue to say. If you do not understand this simple function, then we are left to doubt your actual competence in both flipping and reversing problems.
How nice. You don't even understand the argument I made, and you're trying to put me down anyway. Again, you're just putting the underwear on your own head. An arbitrarily smart and unbiased agent reading this thread would conclude that you, sir, are a moron.
  #364  
Old 01-01-2018, 10:16 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Ok, so in between insults, you're saying that a system that can be broken into arbitrary truth tables, is, in your view, not modelable using Turing machines?

Just so we're clear, you know what a truth table is, right? You write down every possible binary number that can be an input to a system and also every possible internal state the system has.

So if a synapse had 10 inputs, and with research you figured out that you only need 8 bits of resolution for the inputs and a single 8 bit accumulator as an internal variable, the truth table for the system would be a series of columns of numbers expressing every possible combination of inputs and internal accumulator state.

Anyways, you are making the claim that you cannot emulate this truth table with a Turing machine?

Are you sure you wish to make that claim? Hypothetically speaking, just for the sake of argument, what if you were totally wrong? If you're wrong about this one thing, which is kind of a bigger error than misspelling a few words, could you be wrong about your assertion that I don't know what I am talking about?

Again, obviously you feel super strongly about your hypothesis that I'm ignorant, I'm just asking if you are even capable of admitting fault, if it turns out to be you're wrong. Because as it so happens, any truth table can be emulated by a turing machine, but I'll have to produce an article clearly stating that. I don't see any reason to bother if you simply are so self assured you're right that you just don't care.
My God, you're a fucking ignoramus! I don't think even you are so dumb that you can't go back and read more carefully. I said no such thing as you claim and in fact said quite the opposite. So now we can count reading comprehension among your multitude of faults.

Truth tables can be implemented in any arbitrary set of logic gates. In fact, functionally, that's exactly what logic gates implement. This is neither interesting nor relevant to the discussion of computation. What I said -- and I said it explicitly -- was that this is not a sufficient condition to implement Turing equivalence. For that you need things like an instruction set, persistent memory, and decision-making branching functions. You need the ability to process symbols in a semantic context, the way that a series of letters and spaces conveys a message to sentient humans, or a tape of symbols conveys meaning to a theoretical Turing machine.

Maybe you can get at least a partial refund on your CS degree?
  #365  
Old 01-01-2018, 10:22 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
How nice. You don't even understand the argument I made, and you're trying to put me down anyway. Again, you're just putting the underwear on your own head. An arbitrarily smart and unbiased agent reading this thread would conclude that you, sir, are a moron.
No, no. It is bras I put on my head, in accordance with the work of Gary and Wyatt (1985). They have demonstrated it is quite trivial to build a hawt woman with computational power, and their work complements many of the theories you discuss here, to our betterment.

Now it has been argued by Max and Ian (also 1985) that the theories of G&W were bogus, that their attempt to create a computational consciousness merely resulted in the creation of an ICBM. However, no evidence has been offered to prove this ICBM ever existed, and Ian's continued declaration that "it's under Wyatt's house, the dweeb!" has been met with skepticism.

But you should know this if you were as learned as you tell us. Personally, I have my doubts. What are your credentials in the weirder sciences?

Last edited by JohnT; 01-01-2018 at 10:24 PM.
  #366  
Old 01-01-2018, 10:35 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Truth tables can be implemented in any arbitrary set of logic gates. In fact, functionally, that's exactly what logic gates implement. This is neither interesting nor relevant to the discussion of computation. What I said -- and I said it explicitly -- was that this is not a sufficient condition to implement Turing equivalence. For that you need things like an instruction set, persistent memory, and decision-making branching functions. You need the ability to process symbols in a semantic context, the way that a series of letters and spaces conveys a message to sentient humans, or a tape of symbols conveys meaning to a theoretical Turing machine.
Umm, what? Ok now I think we've blown right past each other.

I'm saying what the brain does can be functionally mimicked by computation, and what I mean by computation is digital logic implementing truth tables. Semantics? Symbol processing? tapes? None of that matters.

Now it so happens that I know any Turing complete machine can implement any truth table, hence I say you can emulate a brain with Turing machines. Also means an AI based on Turing machines can be constructed that will be able to perform any cognitive task a human does. (albeit it might be too slow to be useful)

This doesn't mean the brain has all of the features of Turing machines.

So you're telling me that all your insults were based on a false understanding of my point?

Ok, well, do you agree with my real point, then? My real point is that today we can build brain-like computer chips. We haven't quite needed all the complexities of a real brain, not yet. These chips are primarily a single computational subunit called a multiply-accumulate. Out of all the features of modern computers, they really just need a shit-ton of this one single functional unit.

If you work out what a brain synapse functionally is, the math operation is 1*(transmitter_vesicles*transfer_function*receiver_function) += charge_level. Or multiply accumulate. Though if you were going for strict brain emulation, you would not use quite the same algorithms that modern AI research is using.

And I made arguments saying that we can build ever bigger arrays of these chips, and both emulate brains belonging to once living people, if we wanted to, as well as build artificial intelligences that have the same functionality or better that we have.

That's my point. I don't give a rat's ass about symbols or displays.

Last edited by SamuelA; 01-01-2018 at 10:38 PM.
  #367  
Old 01-01-2018, 10:49 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Oh, just checking.

My working definition of computation - truth tables - is exactly correct.

Computation is any type of calculation[1][2] that includes both arithmetical and non-arithmetical steps and follows a well-defined model understood and described as, for example, an algorithm.

The study of computation is paramount to the discipline of computer science.

Guess I won't need to be asking my alma mater for my money back yet.
  #368  
Old 01-01-2018, 11:22 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Guess I won't need to be asking my alma mater for my money back yet.
You'd have to wait for that traveling carnival to come back to your town first.
  #369  
Old 01-01-2018, 11:42 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
You'd have to wait for that traveling carnival to come back to your town first.
What a childish insult. You call yourself an adult, huh.
  #370  
Old 01-02-2018, 04:49 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
So you're telling me that all your insults were based on a false understanding of my point?
No, my insults were based on the conclusion -- as shown in previous posts, and more below, that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
That's my point. I don't give a rat's ass about symbols or displays.
Of course you don't. Because you don't understand how a Turing machine defines computation or why it's a central tenet of computer science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Oh, just checking.

My working definition of computation - truth tables - is exactly correct.

Computation is any type of calculation[1][2] that includes both arithmetical and non-arithmetical steps and follows a well-defined model understood and described as, for example, an algorithm.

The study of computation is paramount to the discipline of computer science.

Guess I won't need to be asking my alma mater for my money back yet.
Answer these questions. Do it in you own words, as I did when trying to explain these concepts to you. Try to redeem the impression that you're the total ignoramus that everyone now sees on full display.

1. I have a traditional electronic calculator built out of logic gates that implements truth tables and can add, subtract, multiply, and divide. Is this device Turing equivalent? Why or why not? Explain your answer in relation to the Wikipedia extract that you plagiarized in post #367.

2. Can the computer on my desk be regarded as Turing complete? Why or why not?

3. Are cognitive processes computational? If so, why is this a fundamental point of contention in cognitive science?

And I'll say a couple of things here while awaiting your responses.

I admit that I thought for a brief while, based mostly on your claims rather than your actual posts, that education may actually have hammered some theoretical knowledge into your thick skull and you were just lacking practical experience, and your obnoxious pomposity was just a quirk of youth and immaturity. I'm now convinced that Tripler was literally correct. You really are a spectacularly ignorant blowhard. It's amazing. I'm no longer being facetious when I say that if you really do have a CS degree, you should demand your money back. You remind me of an M.Sc. candidate that was once foisted off on me to "help" with a project. He was a fucking waste of space.

I had a sort of New Year's resolution in the back of my mind to try to be more conciliatory even here in the pit -- but I've found that with you it's impossible, though you can see the tattered remnants of it in the last sentence of my post #358.

Answer the questions.
  #371  
Old 01-02-2018, 05:00 PM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
What a childish insult. You call yourself an adult, huh.
I think if you did a little Christian fellowshipping with Czarcasm you'd find he's really easy to talk to and not at all insulting.
  #372  
Old 01-02-2018, 05:00 PM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
The thread reads nicely and amusingly if the SamA posts are skipped.
  #373  
Old 01-02-2018, 05:04 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
I think if you did a little Christian fellowshipping with Czarcasm you'd find he's really easy to talk to and not at all insulting.
If he knows as much about religion as he does about science, we'll have a grand time.
  #374  
Old 01-02-2018, 05:35 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,228
If he knows as much about religion as he does about science, he probably thinks that "Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick" is the opening line of the Pontifical High Mass.
  #375  
Old 01-02-2018, 05:43 PM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
No, everyone knows the opening line is; "Spectacles, testicles, watch, wallet."
  #376  
Old 01-02-2018, 06:11 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 13,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
What a childish insult. You call yourself an adult, huh.
Nice rebuttal dipshit. Still haven't figured out this whole "Pit" thing I see.
  #377  
Old 01-02-2018, 06:22 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
1. I have a traditional electronic calculator built out of logic gates that implements truth tables and can add, subtract, multiply, and divide. Is this device Turing equivalent? Why or why not? Explain your answer in relation to the Wikipedia extract that you plagiarized in post #367.

2. Can the computer on my desk be regarded as Turing complete? Why or why not?

3. Are cognitive processes computational? If so, why is this a fundamental point of contention in cognitive science?
Answer the questions.
1. No, missing features. No branch statements at a minimum.

2. Yes. If it had infinite memory it could emulate any other computing system.

3. Yes. Computation != Turing complete. One is a subset of the other. Obviously.

The point of contention is that neurons are executing branch statements and you can obviously build a neural net "from the outside" to emulate any other computing system. But the human brain wasn't built from the outside by some master planner, it was made procedurally from relatively simple rules and all the neural weights are somehow derived from actual feedback from, well, chemical signals from the animal and also specific neurotransmitter-receptor pairings each have an initial gain factor.

Last edited by SamuelA; 01-02-2018 at 06:24 PM.
  #378  
Old 01-02-2018, 06:32 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
You know, a topic you might even appreciate. If you were wanting to build a front end to protect a computer system, and you wanted to prove it was absolutely reliable, you'd actually want that front end to not be Turing complete.

For instance, you could implement your TCP/IP stack in an FPGA (and don't cheat and use a software defined CPU like Xilinx offers). Each memory buffer fundamentally can't overflow, there's nowhere for the extra bits to go. Any corruption can't result in the machine doing anything unwanted, as each subsystem in passes data to another component that only has the features needed to perform that subsystem's functional purpose.

Eric Drexler has pointed out that if silicon were basically free, our whole concept of software is actually obsolete. You'd have a lot more reliability if computers didn't have general purpose capabilities, but instead, each application gets a dedicated chunk of silicon logic gates and memory to execute that application's features. This would make most forms of computer hacking impossible.

To explain in rough details how that would work, right now, say there's a button on your screen from your web browser. When you click that button, instructions cause a branch processing unit in one of your CPU cores to evaluate what to do next. The 'Eric Drexler way', there's a chunk of circuitry just for your web browser and nothing else, and every button you can click actually triggers circuitry for that feature only.

There are obvious practical difficulties with this, but you might realize there are advantages, as well. Latencies would be almost zero - the computing system would respond in realtime, limited basically only by propagation delay. And it would be nearly impossible to hack. If a specific application didn't want to share data with any other application , it could specify a hardware memory buffer that has no wires going to anything but circuits dedicated to that application.

Last edited by SamuelA; 01-02-2018 at 06:37 PM.
  #379  
Old 01-02-2018, 07:08 PM
Tripler is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: JSOTF SDMB, OL-LANL
Posts: 7,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
You know, a topic you might even appreciate. If you were wanting to build a front end to protect a computer system . . .
. . . and there's the redirect. Notice, ladies and gentlemen, when a SamuelA is challenged in the wild, he'll make a masterful illusion of himself (or he'll drop ink like an octopus in a mini-rant and/or swim to safer waters) to distract you from the arguments that he doesn't agree with. Smoke and mirrors, ladies and gentlemen. Smoke. And. Mirrors.

Don't worry SamuelA, I've just not had the time to walk through all of the quagmire of your nuclear weapon/spacelift posts. In due time, sir. In due time. Oh, and 4.96 E22 kg, dependent on propellant, but I'll put $20 down that you'll somehow find fault with that.

Whatever happened to the DryPasta idea?

Tripler
Smoke. And. Mirrors.

Last edited by Tripler; 01-02-2018 at 07:13 PM.
  #380  
Old 01-02-2018, 07:14 PM
Tripler is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: JSOTF SDMB, OL-LANL
Posts: 7,316
4.69 E22 kg. Typo.
  #381  
Old 01-02-2018, 07:49 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
1. No, missing features. No branch statements at a minimum.
How come you ignored the crucial second part of my question, namely, to "Explain your answer in relation to the Wikipedia extract that you plagiarized in post #367".

Because you see, SamuelA, you have just thoroughly contradicted yourself and exposed your blatant ignorance. The Wiki entry on computation, which can be found here, and which you plagiarized without understanding, includes in its definition of computation the concepts that I have herein bolded for your reading comprehension: "... includes both arithmetical and non-arithmetical steps and follows a well-defined model understood and described as, for example, an algorithm." The crucial terms being "steps" (as in, instruction steps), "non-arithmetical", and "algorithm".

So you see, SamuelA, your signals, logic gates, and truth tables -- all of which are present in an electronic calculator -- do not meet the minimum criteria of computation. This is why Alan Turing conceptualized the Turing machine: to define the essence of what computation is. This is why Turing equivalence is so crucial. This is why you're full of shit.

Interestingly, Jerry Fodor himself is quoted further down in that same wiki article on computation, stating that "semantic content is a necessary condition for computation". This is why a semantic view of symbols -- the semantic-representational model I've been discussing -- the symbolic representations that you clearly stated you "don't give a rat's ass about" -- is crucial to the question of whether a system is in fact computational or not. NOT your fucking "signals", synapses, logic gates, or fucking "truth tables".

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
3. Yes. Computation != Turing complete. One is a subset of the other. Obviously.
"Obviously"? You are now properly exposed as full of shit. Maybe you should read the above a second time, in case it didn't sink into your feeble brain. Or would you prefer to believe that some of the greatest minds in cognitive science, like Fodor, Putnam, Marr, and Dennett -- people who actually know what they're talking about and helped to establish cognitive science as a scientific discipline -- that these people are wrong and a dipshit like yourself who just made a total ass of himself -- is right? The dipshit who claimed that "obviously" everything in the brain is computational, because he doesn't know what the word means?

I don't know how to say this any more plainly, SamuelA. You are an ignoramus. You don't know what you're talking about. QED. You really should do more listening and less bloviating. You should also claim a full refund of whatever you paid for your computer science degree, if you have one.
  #382  
Old 01-02-2018, 08:21 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
How come you ignored the crucial second part of my question, namely, to "Explain your answer in relation to the Wikipedia extract that you plagiarized in post #367".

Because you see, SamuelA, you have just thoroughly contradicted yourself and exposed your blatant ignorance. The Wiki entry on computation, which can be found here, and which you plagiarized without understanding, includes in its definition of computation the concepts that I have herein bolded for your reading comprehension: "... includes both arithmetical and non-arithmetical steps and follows a well-defined model understood and described as, for example, an algorithm." The crucial terms being "steps" (as in, instruction steps), "non-arithmetical", and "algorithm"..
Meh. I choose to believe computation is a catch all term that doesn't mean Turing completeness. Which is how I read the wiki statement. Now, yeah, if you're really biased, out to 'prove I'm wrong', I guess you might be motivated to misread it.

But since Webster is actually canonical, wikipedia isn't, let's see if my "choosing to believe" is me being full of shit or not :

Definition of computation
1 a : the act or action of computing : calculation
b : the use or operation of a computer
2 : a system of reckoning
3 : an amount computed

Looks like you're the one slinging bullshit. Guess you better get a tuition refund yourself.
  #383  
Old 01-02-2018, 08:30 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripler View Post
. . . and there's the redirect. Notice, ladies and gentlemen, when a SamuelA is challenged in the wild, he'll make a masterful illusion of himself (or he'll drop ink like an octopus in a mini-rant and/or swim to safer waters) to distract you from the arguments that he doesn't agree with. Smoke and mirrors, ladies and gentlemen. Smoke. And. Mirrors.
You know, just saying, I know you're a motivated speaker. You have taken it upon yourself to say the meanest possible thing, to interpret everything the worst way. But if you read one post above, I do address every point. I didn't smokescreen anything.

I just got bored of winning this argument. It's like playing chess against a 3 year old where I've gotten checkmate, and the 3 year old is like "no you didn't" and knocks the pieces off the table.

Wolf's argument is that the brain might not be Turing complete and might not even meet the strict dictionary definition of "computation". Which is completely the opposite from what I've been arguing. I've been saying that if we have machines that are Turing complete, we can definitely emulate the actions of synapses...and have, in hundreds of smaller scale experiments.

So even if Wolf is 100% correct, it doesn't even matter. Basically after the 3 year old kicks the pieces around, I put them back on the board and play the game from there. Checkmate again. Another "poo poo head" comment. Another game. Another checkmate. Getting bored, now.

Last edited by SamuelA; 01-02-2018 at 08:31 PM.
  #384  
Old 01-02-2018, 08:36 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
"Obviously"? You are now properly exposed as full of shit. Maybe you should read the above a second time, in case it didn't sink into your feeble brain. Or would you prefer to believe that some of the greatest minds in cognitive science, like Fodor, Putnam, Marr, and Dennett -- people who actually know what they're talking about and helped to establish cognitive science as a scientific discipline -- that these people are wrong and a dipshit like yourself who just made a total ass of himself -- is right? The dipshit who claimed that "obviously" everything in the brain is computational, because he doesn't know what the word means?
You know, let's just assume that Meriam Webster is wrong, and these scientists you mention are more correct.

So...let's look at this bolded statement.

1. I showed you in great detail how you can emulate "everything" in the brain with truth tables, or dedicated logic circuits that emulate the rules encoded in those truth tables. (that's what an FPGA mostly is, btw...a grid of circuits, each of which is capable of implementing any truth table up to a certain number of bits)

2. You have done nothing to disprove (1)

3. Now you're saying that computation and Turing Machines are more than what the brain does, if the brain is nothing but truth tables.

Ok. I concede, you're right. So what? That just means superset. So it still doesn't matter.

Last edited by SamuelA; 01-02-2018 at 08:36 PM.
  #385  
Old 01-02-2018, 08:36 PM
Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 3,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripler View Post
Whatever happened to the DryPasta idea?
It was dumb. I thought it was humorous at the time, I still kind of think it's humorous, but it doesn't seem like it'll make sense to anyone.
__________________
I am a guest
  #386  
Old 01-02-2018, 08:49 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Meh. I choose to believe computation is a catch all term ...
You really are a priceless fuckwit! Keep digging!

The loose non-technical meaning is completely useless in any technical context, and it's clearly not what was meant when you made an ass of yourself here. I even explicitly pointed out here that we were discussing the formal meaning in cognitive and computer science, yet you plowed right on making a fool of yourself. And now you have to backpedal by claiming that you -- a self-professed computer science genius -- was just using "computational" in a loose everyday sense -- a sense in which the word is essentially meaningless since it can be construed to apply to virtually any physical system, and hence completely useless. The best part was when you cribbed a paragraph out of Wikipedia with a more formal definition which actually says the exact opposite of what you thought it did.

Yeah, your brilliance has checkmated everyone in sight! Look up "moron" in the dictionary, too. You'll find it under "M".
  #387  
Old 01-02-2018, 09:38 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Don't challenge a computer engineer on their understanding of computation
Why not? You're not the only techie on this board by a wide margin.
  #388  
Old 01-02-2018, 09:42 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
I just got bored of winning this argument. It's like playing chess against a 3 year old where I've gotten checkmate, and the 3 year old is like "no you didn't" and knocks the pieces off the table.
If you play chess with a number of people and there's always a 3 year old knocking the pieces off the board...
  #389  
Old 01-02-2018, 09:47 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
You really are a priceless fuckwit! Keep digging!

The loose non-technical meaning is completely useless in any technical context, and it's clearly not what was meant when you made an ass of yourself here. I even explicitly pointed out here that we were discussing the formal meaning in cognitive and computer science, yet you plowed right on making a fool of yourself. And now you have to backpedal by claiming that you -- a self-professed computer science genius -- was just using "computational" in a loose everyday sense -- a sense in which the word is essentially meaningless since it can be construed to apply to virtually any physical system, and hence completely useless. The best part was when you cribbed a paragraph out of Wikipedia with a more formal definition which actually says the exact opposite of what you thought it did.

Yeah, your brilliance has checkmated everyone in sight! Look up "moron" in the dictionary, too. You'll find it under "M".
Whoosh. Still doesn't mean anything, you're still wrong about the central issue.

Also, the brain does branch statements, so it meets the definition of computation and always did.

Basically by your view,

Turing Complete > Computation > Calculation.

Well, ok. The brain clearly hits the Computation threshold. Maybe not the Turing complete one. Nice philosophical argument I guess, but totally irrelevant. Maybe we'll build AI chips in the near future that are not Turing complete, either.

And you're saying that because I was fuzzy on the meaning of computation, from a CS course 10 years ago, I must therefore just be a total moron, no more knowledgeable about the subject than a car mechanic or garbageman. You have to believe that, your ego is tied up in it somehow. But it clearly isn't true.

Last edited by SamuelA; 01-02-2018 at 09:51 PM.
  #390  
Old 01-02-2018, 10:58 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Welp. Time for one last post here.

To everyone who has said nasty things and failed to make any meaningful arguments, I pit you all. You should all be ashamed of yourselves, doing your part to make the world a more hostile and ignorant place. To LSLGuy and k9bfriender, who at least made reasoned arguments, thank you. To the rest of you : you're wrong about everything, and perhaps some of you will live long enough to see it.

But hey, you're all just average examples of humans. I shouldn't expect any better. Enjoy your meaningless primate banter until you croak.


“We spend a great deal of time studying history," Hawking told the lecture, "which, let’s face it, is mostly the history of stupidity."
  #391  
Old 01-02-2018, 11:15 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,121
What the fuck do we do now? He took his ball and went home!!

  #392  
Old 01-02-2018, 11:30 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,689
Eh, another arrogant jackass who thinks he knows everything and the rest of the world is comprised of morons who can't see his brilliance.

No shortage of those people in the history of humanity.
  #393  
Old 01-03-2018, 12:34 AM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 13,065
Yet another whiner who says he's winning, we're losing, and he's leaving. So there.

"Reasoned arguments" - I'm certain he does not know what those words mean.

Quote:
To the rest of you : you're wrong about everything, and perhaps some of you will live long enough to see it.
A rather sweeping denunciation, which closes with something that's probably not a threat, merely a hope that we'll learn the error of our ways before we die.

In addition to his complete inability to lay out a logical argument, or to follow an argument laid out by anyone else, I find him to be a despicable human being. I was already on the Sammy-haters list, but when he suggested that we might as well go ahead and kill dementia patients because at least that way we might save some data and learn something, he went on my "posters that horrify me" list.

Do you suppose he has added everyone but LSLGuy and k9befriender to his ignore list? Do you suppose he ever learned how to use his ignore list?

tl; dr fuck the fuck off you horrific excuse for a human
  #394  
Old 01-03-2018, 01:51 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,228
This has been a fun pitting. It's a good thing that SamuelA is such an asshole or I might feel a twinge of guilt, kind of like beating up a three-year-old. But this is a three-year-old obnoxious brat who richly deserves it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Still doesn't mean anything, you're still wrong about the central issue.
Me and every cognitive scientist in the world. Wrong. Totally. SamuelA, however, is always right. According to SamuelA. But not, sadly for him, according to the record of the 8 pages (so far) of this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Also, the brain does branch statements, so it meets the definition of computation and always did.
I almost spit out my drink all over the keyboard! I'm going to send this along to all my colleagues in cognitive science. Now I know what is meant by "the stupid, it burns!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
And you're saying that because I was fuzzy on the meaning of computation, from a CS course 10 years ago, I must therefore just be a total moron, no more knowledgeable about the subject than a car mechanic or garbageman.
Now he's claiming his education failed him. No, SamuelA, the nature of computation is not something one learns "from a CS course 10 years ago". The nature of computation is so fundamental to the discipline that it's deeply ingrained in every practitioner of even the most humble competence right from his earliest years; it's not something you just forget. That you can't even use the word correctly speaks volumes to your lack of such.

And we now have a new meme for SamuelA! In addition to
I know what I'm talking about
and
I'm always right
we now have this gem:
Don't challenge a computer engineer on their understanding of computation
That may be the best one of all!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
You know, let's just assume that Meriam Webster is wrong, and these scientists you mention are more correct.

So...let's look at this bolded statement.

1. I showed you in great detail how you can emulate "everything" in the brain with truth tables, or dedicated logic circuits that emulate the rules encoded in those truth tables. (that's what an FPGA mostly is, btw...a grid of circuits, each of which is capable of implementing any truth table up to a certain number of bits)

2. You have done nothing to disprove (1)

3. Now you're saying that computation and Turing Machines are more than what the brain does, if the brain is nothing but truth tables.

Ok. I concede, you're right. So what? That just means superset. So it still doesn't matter.
This is incoherent. I note for the record that no one has said such things as are claimed here, most of which is incoherent babble. The salient question is whether mental processes can be viewed as abstract operations on symbolic representations, and can thus be viewed as intrinsically computational. There is strong evidence that some are, but many are not. The computational theory of mind is simultaneously an important theory of cognition but only a partial explanation of the architecture of the mind.
  #395  
Old 01-03-2018, 03:03 AM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I'm going to send this along to all my colleagues in cognitive science.
Yeah, right. The ones working besides you at burger king, right?

How can you have "colleagues" when you never passed neuroscience? You obviously never passed signal processing, either.

And finally, the big one. You claim to be knowledgeable in cognitive science, yet you don't know how to weight evidence properly. Over and over and over, you pick up some irrelevant detail and claim that this is is! This is the proof that you were right all along! And your conclusion is always sweeping.

Have you even heard of the phrase "shut up and multiply"? Do you even know how the most basic neural network works? Because you weight evidence over a lot of terms, one thing is never enough...

Last edited by SamuelA; 01-03-2018 at 03:06 AM.
  #396  
Old 01-03-2018, 03:56 AM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
It is amusing SamA thinks the above is an effective response and not something confirming that he is a childish idiot. He will in no doubt 'flounce' again.
  #397  
Old 01-03-2018, 05:58 AM
jz78817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 12,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramira View Post
It is amusing SamA thinks the above is an effective response and not something confirming that he is a childish idiot. He will in no doubt 'flounce' again.
The best part is that once he grows his big boy hairs and gets out of middle school, he canít delete any of his posts here and is stuck with 1,843 reminders of what a supercilious jerk he was.
  #398  
Old 01-03-2018, 06:04 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post

And finally, the big one. You claim to be knowledgeable in cognitive science, yet you don't know how to weight evidence properly.
(Bolding his)
Ooooh! I think I know this one!
Do you tie one end of a rope around the evidence, and the other end around a large cement block?
  #399  
Old 01-03-2018, 06:47 AM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 12,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
You have to believe that, your ego is tied up in it somehow.
Sorry if anybody got hit by shrapnel, guys. I've gotta start buying more rugged irony meters.
  #400  
Old 01-03-2018, 08:24 AM
Tripler is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: JSOTF SDMB, OL-LANL
Posts: 7,316
A little late to the party. . . but my two cents

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
You know, just saying, I know you're a motivated speaker. You have taken it upon yourself to say the meanest possible thing, to interpret everything the worst way.
Boo fuckin' hoo! If being "mean" is calling you out on omissions, errors, bullshit and persistence in both of them, and it finally dawns on you that you are that dumb, then I am the meanest S.O.B. on the boards.

Let me refresh your memory of what actually happened to put you on the radar (and not your attempt at revisionist history):
  1. After mis-comprehending a question and making an unrelated response, in post #22 he tries to tell us that the AEA of '46 allows POTUS to authorize a strike, and posts a lobby group's article as his first source. He apparently skimmed over that article, since Paragraph 2 and 3 of that article directly contradict his claims. I bring this to his attention later in post #83.
  2. He then tries a personal attack in post #89, which fails. Then in post #90 he reasserts his incorrect opinon, without really any citation or backup. I ask him to actually read the AEA of '46 and to provide a citation. He then does some handwaving about hippies at the front gate in what I presume is a redirect tactic.
  3. He then skims the AEA of '46 to provide "evidence" without reading the context of the section, or the Act for that matter. He bases his argument on "probably come from" and a "seems to give him" statements--far less than hard evidence. I bring this to his attention.
  4. He then scrambles to find actual evidence to support his claims, and indicates that he read it in the Washington Post (which hadn't appeared in any discussion prior to this point). Again, he'd skimmed that article, missing the statement that "[the Act] firmly put the power of the atomic bomb in the hands of the president and the civilian components of the executive branch"underlining by Tripler. He also either misses or ignores the statement from the WaPo article that "Eventually, the brass adopted the idea that, when it came to nuclear matters, they were at the beck and call of the president. It was not generalsí responsibility to make the order; it was their responsibility to carry it out."
  5. After being baited and taken in by his first redirect, I realize it, and get back to the initial point about the POTUS having the ability to launch with the War Powers Act of 73.
  6. Then there's some back and forth from posts #115 - 121, with Ravenman stepping in to help him understand the meaning of the WaPo article.
  7. Finally in #122, he attempts another redirect because he gets caught with his pants down, and I let it go, while the conversation rolls into some other irrelevant side discussions.

Why do I bring up the WaPo article? Because it's too late in the game, and because at no point does that article state the AEA of '46 allow POTUS to launch, nor does it imply Congress passing that particular law to allow him to do so. When called out, he scrambles to find anything that he thinks will bolster his case after the fact. However, SamuelA's lack of reading comprehension and flair for grandstanding false expertise while making fantastical claims makes me immediately suspicious of anything he says or references. Everything he says or posts is suspect.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
I just got bored of winning this argument. It's like playing chess against a 3 year old where I've gotten checkmate, and the 3 year old is like "no you didn't" and knocks the pieces off the table.
The sickly amusing/sadly depressing part of this is that you actually thing your "winning." You never had checkmate, you never even moved your pawn--you just kept sitting on your side, licking all of the pawns, trying to interlock the tops of the rooks together like they were cylindrical Legos. Besides, your several other "TLDR, I'm not bullshit, you're bullshit!" belie your Royal Toddlerness. (Besides, it's TLDR for you to read four paragraphs?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Wolf's argument is that the brain might not be Turing complete and might not even meet the strict dictionary definition of "computation". Which is completely the opposite from what I've been arguing. I've been saying that if we have machines that are Turing complete, we can definitely emulate the actions of synapses...and have, in hundreds of smaller scale experiments.

So even if Wolf is 100% correct, it doesn't even matter. Basically after the 3 year old kicks the pieces around, I put them back on the board and play the game from there. Checkmate again. Another "poo poo head" comment. Another game. Another checkmate. Getting bored, now.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Welp. Time for one last post here.
:: ears perk up ::

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
To everyone who has said nasty things and failed to make any meaningful arguments, I pit you all. You should all be ashamed of yourselves, doing your part to make the world a more hostile and ignorant place. To LSLGuy and k9bfriender, who at least made reasoned arguments, thank you. To the rest of you : you're wrong about everything, and perhaps some of you will live long enough to see it.
Aaaah, the glorious ramblings of a three-year old who just knocked over the chess set.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
But hey, you're all just average examples of humans. I shouldn't expect any better. Enjoy your meaningless primate banter until you croak.
Well if you're feeling bad about being beaten by primates, then fare thee well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post

ďWe spend a great deal of time studying history," Hawking told the lecture, "which, letís face it, is mostly the history of stupidity."
Ahem. . . Cite?
.
.
.

I had an epihany while typing all this up; I'm going to kind of miss you, Ancient Aliens Guy. I can see your epitaph 100 years from now, "If they could have built an Orion Drive, it might have been built this way. . .

Tripler
We'll see how long this "ignore list" thing works, eh!
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017