Re: A retort to al0nz0tg
- """<br>It appears to me that you are using vague
jargon in place of actual knowledge and understanding.
<br>"""<br><br>You see right through me. I am merely trying to build
a framework for my own understanding that involves
the sequential steps of hypothesizing, testing, and
refining. If my terms seem vague its because they are
filling the place of more 'crystaline' concepts.
Screaming at me to give you a perfect set definition is a
superb way of wasting your time. Why? DO YOU REALLY WANT
TO KNOW WHY? (and I'm assuming you don't.) The
problem is in words themselves, not the ones I choose nor
how I define them. The problems in defining terms
that you are chiding me for are not my fault at all,
My problems come directly from the insistance that
words to do things the cannot! <br><br>At the time I
successfully complete my project (I'm being optomistic, excuse
me), all you will ever see from me is a circuit board
and a text with code examples of how to get the
circuit board to solve varrious cybernetic problems.
There will not be any concepts or bold clarrified
definitions, just whatever I find convenient in explaining my
device. The only thing in either the device or its
accompanying text that could possibly meet your requirements
for an unequivocal definition is the actual
schematics of the device and the listing of the source-code
(if any) that it runs. <br><br>So now I give you a
choice. You can either continue to dick around with
definitions to the exclusion of any and all real progress.
(In which case I will leave this club in disgust.)
<br><br>Or you can help me continue to expand my knowelege
of the brain and develop a mathematicly precice
theory of how it works and then build a practical
implementation of that theory. Even if my ideas are absurd,
there is still one criticaly important idea that I
insist you take from this posting. That is the
observation that words and classifications are inherantly
meaningless. And that your best advice is to abandon all
attempts to discover hidden meaning, which doesn't exist.
<br>The only discussion that will carry us anywhere is
the analysis of the physicaly measurable properties
of the brain. For example: <br><br>Is the data on
the optic nerve formatted? If so, how?<br><br>Only
questions such as this will carry our work forward.
Have you succeeded
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Spider_Plant9 wrote:
> The rosetta stone is a archeoliguist's dream come
> true. The Stone was found in a place called rosetta
> from what I remember but it helped solve the
> hieroglyphics puzzle because on the stone was written the same
> text in three languages Greek, Egytian, and Latin. We
> knew both Greek and Latin. The egytian language though
> unknown was also the same texts as the known languages.
> So, using the other two languages we were able to
> piece together egyptian.<br><br>Now, you can guess what
> I'm going to do with the texts and languages I
> collect. I'm going to create a computerized version of the
> rosetta complete with the "thought" processes to use it
> directly and extrapolate more words and
> sentenses.<br><br>Spider_plant9<br>Archeology and the "Words of
God"<br>To Create Silicon
> Life<br>Anybody know of a set of standardized interpretations for
> the Qur'an.