• Re: A thought [ Populating the Cyc Project ]

    From olcott@21:1/5 to dklei...@gmail.com on Mon Oct 17 23:19:52 2022
    XPost: comp.theory

    On 10/17/2022 9:37 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 7:15:15 PM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
    How many of the regular posters here would be prepared to commit to not
    replying to any more of PO's nonsense? The trouble is that every reply
    just adds more fuel to the dumpster fire we (and others now departed)
    have been warming ourselves round for the last 18 or so years.

    Keeping quiet won't be easy because to get the fix he needs he'll insult
    you, lie about you and misrepresent what you've said. You'll have to
    sit on your hands while he calls you ignorant or says you are
    incompetent or, even worse, that you agree with him!

    He won't stop posting of course (and I have no desire to curtail
    anyone's speech), but un-replied-to posts and short threads won't get
    the search weight that long ones get. Do a few Google or DuckDuckGo
    searches for key names and terms in this area. Do you like what you
    see? If not, consider just saying nothing!

    Naturally, he will spray other Usenet groups with his posts to rope in
    new blood (and he /will/ succeed in doing so), but if there are a
    reasonable number of us, some of these new victims might be more easily
    persuaded to join us.

    Just to be clear, I'm not averse to people taking /about/ PO -- cranks
    and crank ideas can be interesting -- but since we are sane (you know
    who "we" are!), threads and sub-threads amongst ourselves will either
    reach a conclusion or will simply peter out (no pun intended).

    There are other options such as agreeing a short, simple reply to be
    posted, anonymously, only once in each thread. In that case my
    preference would be a for this to be a couple of quotes using PO's own
    words, but this should only be considered if there is insufficient
    support for "just say nothing".

    So, anyone up for it?

    I've pretty much done just that But I'll happi[y stop commenting
    completely.

    I'd met PO before. Back then he was messing with ontology and
    the results were similar. When the Turing machine madness
    started I commented once and since then I have done no more
    than an occasional snipe. I would be delighted to stop.

    My purpose in refuting the HP proofs is to establish the required
    truckload of credibility so that my Gödel and Tarski reasoning will be accepted. My purpose in getting this reasoning accepted is to formalize
    the notion of truth to anchor Davidson's truth conditional semantics.

    After having completed all of that I would like to lead a team to derive
    the process required for automatically populating knowledge ontologies
    such as the Cyc project. I have determined that this is the key required
    step to create a fully functional human mind from software.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc


    --
    Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
    Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Oct 18 07:06:23 2022
    XPost: comp.theory

    On 10/18/22 12:19 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/17/2022 9:37 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 7:15:15 PM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
    How many of the regular posters here would be prepared to commit to not
    replying to any more of PO's nonsense? The trouble is that every reply
    just adds more fuel to the dumpster fire we (and others now departed)
    have been warming ourselves round for the last 18 or so years.

    Keeping quiet won't be easy because to get the fix he needs he'll insult >>> you, lie about you and misrepresent what you've said. You'll have to
    sit on your hands while he calls you ignorant or says you are
    incompetent or, even worse, that you agree with him!

    He won't stop posting of course (and I have no desire to curtail
    anyone's speech), but un-replied-to posts and short threads won't get
    the search weight that long ones get. Do a few Google or DuckDuckGo
    searches for key names and terms in this area. Do you like what you
    see? If not, consider just saying nothing!

    Naturally, he will spray other Usenet groups with his posts to rope in
    new blood (and he /will/ succeed in doing so), but if there are a
    reasonable number of us, some of these new victims might be more easily
    persuaded to join us.

    Just to be clear, I'm not averse to people taking /about/ PO -- cranks
    and crank ideas can be interesting -- but since we are sane (you know
    who "we" are!), threads and sub-threads amongst ourselves will either
    reach a conclusion or will simply peter out (no pun intended).

    There are other options such as agreeing a short, simple reply to be
    posted, anonymously, only once in each thread. In that case my
    preference would be a for this to be a couple of quotes using PO's own
    words, but this should only be considered if there is insufficient
    support for "just say nothing".

    So, anyone up for it?

    I've pretty much done just that But I'll happi[y stop commenting
    completely.

    I'd met PO before. Back then he was messing with ontology and
    the results were similar.  When the Turing machine madness
    started I commented once and since then I have done no more
    than an occasional snipe. I would be delighted to stop.

    My purpose in refuting the HP proofs is to establish the required
    truckload of credibility so that my Gödel and Tarski reasoning will be accepted. My purpose in getting this reasoning accepted is to formalize
    the notion of truth to anchor Davidson's truth conditional semantics.

    After having completed all of that I would like to lead a team to derive
    the process required for automatically populating knowledge ontologies
    such as the Cyc project. I have determined that this is the key required
    step to create a fully functional human mind from software.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc



    So, you post falsehoods in an attempt to get credibility. You HAVE
    clearly showed how "Credible" your logic is. You claim to have proven
    that a Halting Program can be correctly decided as non-halting by lying
    about the criteria used to measure it.

    You have even admitted that H^ applied to H^ Halts (aka P(P)), just that
    for some reason that isn't the criteria that you H needs to use, when it
    is LITERALLY the Definition.

    If you need to "prove" something that is false to be true to show a
    logic system is valid seems to be a good arguement against it. With the reputation you are establishig, probably the best thing you could do is
    NOT talk about it.

    And what do any of those have to do with doing the last?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Truthslave@21:1/5 to Richard Damon on Sat Oct 29 13:52:39 2022
    XPost: comp.theory

    On 18/10/2022 12:06, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/18/22 12:19 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/17/2022 9:37 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 7:15:15 PM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
    How many of the regular posters here would be prepared to commit to not >>>> replying to any more of PO's nonsense? The trouble is that every reply >>>> just adds more fuel to the dumpster fire we (and others now departed)
    have been warming ourselves round for the last 18 or so years.

    Keeping quiet won't be easy because to get the fix he needs he'll
    insult
    you, lie about you and misrepresent what you've said. You'll have to
    sit on your hands while he calls you ignorant or says you are
    incompetent or, even worse, that you agree with him!

    He won't stop posting of course (and I have no desire to curtail
    anyone's speech), but un-replied-to posts and short threads won't get
    the search weight that long ones get. Do a few Google or DuckDuckGo
    searches for key names and terms in this area. Do you like what you
    see? If not, consider just saying nothing!

    Naturally, he will spray other Usenet groups with his posts to rope in >>>> new blood (and he /will/ succeed in doing so), but if there are a
    reasonable number of us, some of these new victims might be more easily >>>> persuaded to join us.

    Just to be clear, I'm not averse to people taking /about/ PO -- cranks >>>> and crank ideas can be interesting -- but since we are sane (you know
    who "we" are!), threads and sub-threads amongst ourselves will either
    reach a conclusion or will simply peter out (no pun intended).

    There are other options such as agreeing a short, simple reply to be
    posted, anonymously, only once in each thread. In that case my
    preference would be a for this to be a couple of quotes using PO's own >>>> words, but this should only be considered if there is insufficient
    support for "just say nothing".

    So, anyone up for it?

    I've pretty much done just that But I'll happi[y stop commenting
    completely.

    I'd met PO before. Back then he was messing with ontology and
    the results were similar. When the Turing machine madness
    started I commented once and since then I have done no more
    than an occasional snipe. I would be delighted to stop.

    My purpose in refuting the HP proofs is to establish the required
    truckload of credibility so that my Gödel and Tarski reasoning will be
    accepted. My purpose in getting this reasoning accepted is to
    formalize the notion of truth to anchor Davidson's truth conditional
    semantics.

    After having completed all of that I would like to lead a team to
    derive the process required for automatically populating knowledge
    ontologies such as the Cyc project. I have determined that this is the
    key required step to create a fully functional human mind from software.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc



    So, you post falsehoods in an attempt to get credibility. You HAVE
    clearly showed how "Credible" your logic is. You claim to have proven
    that a Halting Program can be correctly decided as non-halting by lying
    about the criteria used to measure it.

    You have even admitted that H^ applied to H^ Halts (aka P(P)), just that
    for some reason that isn't the criteria that you H needs to use, when it
    is LITERALLY the Definition.

    If you need to "prove" something that is false to be true to show a
    logic system is valid seems to be a good arguement against it. With the reputation you are establishig, probably the best thing you could do is
    NOT talk about it.

    And what do any of those have to do with doing the last?


    This all reads like a joke.

    Unrelenting posts on Halt dividers, embarked on with no sight of an
    end clause, ....continue until exhausted.

    Beyond logic or reason, there is just occupation, life. Intentions
    exceeds the reasons for this function. There is no reason except it
    can or must. At its core, a mismatch of motives.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Truthslave@21:1/5 to Truthslave on Sat Oct 29 14:37:37 2022
    XPost: comp.theory

    On 29/10/2022 13:52, Truthslave wrote:
    On 18/10/2022 12:06, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/18/22 12:19 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/17/2022 9:37 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 7:15:15 PM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> How many of the regular posters here would be prepared to commit to
    not
    replying to any more of PO's nonsense? The trouble is that every reply >>>>> just adds more fuel to the dumpster fire we (and others now departed) >>>>> have been warming ourselves round for the last 18 or so years.

    Keeping quiet won't be easy because to get the fix he needs he'll
    insult
    you, lie about you and misrepresent what you've said. You'll have to >>>>> sit on your hands while he calls you ignorant or says you are
    incompetent or, even worse, that you agree with him!

    He won't stop posting of course (and I have no desire to curtail
    anyone's speech), but un-replied-to posts and short threads won't get >>>>> the search weight that long ones get. Do a few Google or DuckDuckGo
    searches for key names and terms in this area. Do you like what you
    see? If not, consider just saying nothing!

    Naturally, he will spray other Usenet groups with his posts to rope in >>>>> new blood (and he /will/ succeed in doing so), but if there are a
    reasonable number of us, some of these new victims might be more
    easily
    persuaded to join us.

    Just to be clear, I'm not averse to people taking /about/ PO -- cranks >>>>> and crank ideas can be interesting -- but since we are sane (you know >>>>> who "we" are!), threads and sub-threads amongst ourselves will either >>>>> reach a conclusion or will simply peter out (no pun intended).

    There are other options such as agreeing a short, simple reply to be >>>>> posted, anonymously, only once in each thread. In that case my
    preference would be a for this to be a couple of quotes using PO's own >>>>> words, but this should only be considered if there is insufficient
    support for "just say nothing".

    So, anyone up for it?

    I've pretty much done just that But I'll happi[y stop commenting
    completely.

    I'd met PO before. Back then he was messing with ontology and
    the results were similar. When the Turing machine madness
    started I commented once and since then I have done no more
    than an occasional snipe. I would be delighted to stop.

    My purpose in refuting the HP proofs is to establish the required
    truckload of credibility so that my Gödel and Tarski reasoning will be
    accepted. My purpose in getting this reasoning accepted is to
    formalize the notion of truth to anchor Davidson's truth conditional
    semantics.

    After having completed all of that I would like to lead a team to
    derive the process required for automatically populating knowledge
    ontologies such as the Cyc project. I have determined that this is the
    key required step to create a fully functional human mind from software. >>>
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc



    So, you post falsehoods in an attempt to get credibility. You HAVE
    clearly showed how "Credible" your logic is. You claim to have proven
    that a Halting Program can be correctly decided as non-halting by lying
    about the criteria used to measure it.

    You have even admitted that H^ applied to H^ Halts (aka P(P)), just that
    for some reason that isn't the criteria that you H needs to use, when it
    is LITERALLY the Definition.

    If you need to "prove" something that is false to be true to show a
    logic system is valid seems to be a good arguement against it. With the
    reputation you are establishig, probably the best thing you could do is
    NOT talk about it.

    And what do any of those have to do with doing the last?


    This all reads like a joke.

    Unrelenting posts on Halt dividers, embarked on with no sight of an
    end clause, ....continue until exhausted.

    Beyond logic or reason, there is just occupation, life. Intentions
    exceeds the reasons for this function. There is no reason except it
    can or must. At its core, a mismatch of motives.

    Halt deciders == Halt dividers , error made with trolls in mind,
    and their typical subtext when acting in this way on Usenet forums.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)