Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
> Erik Max Francis wrote:
>> Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
>
>> The problem with all this puffing is that your
>> original comment _did_ contain that implication.
>
> Only to a lunatic.
>
>> "Murray has been flogging his claim to have
>> 'solved A.I.' since long before computers with
>> capacities capable of doing any such thing were
>> available" implies pretty clearly that such
>> capacities are available now,
>
> Not to any sane person it doesn't.
"John has been going on about his claim to have stolen apples I grow
long before I've even had the capability" doesn't imply that I actually
grow apples now, does it? Yes? No? Really? Hilarious!
You're winning! Not sure what at this point, exactly, but you're
totally winning. Keep it up!
Tell you what, why don't you humor all of us peons and give a shot at
trying to explain what it was you were _trying_ to say, and then we can
chuckle at that too? Actually, on second thought, don't bother.
> Michael put _his_ interpretation of what
> I *must* have _meant_ in his opinion, when I wrote
> my response to Arthur T. Murray, into that writing,
> and then tried to argue against that complete
> falsehood as if I'd contended it to be true.
>
> That is intellectual dishonesty of the despicable
> sort.
>
> Physical reality is not binary.
>
> Thus, saying that in, say, the 1960's, computers
> were not capable of supporting AI, says NOTHING AT
> ALL about whether computers today are that capable.
I suppose if you attach a prospectus, guide to your special use of
terminology, and a proof in predicate calculus of what you really meant
rather than the obvious implication anyone fluent in English would
gather from what you actually _wrote_, sure. Winning!
--
Erik Max Francis && max@
alcyone.com &&
http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
A man cannot be comfortable without his own approval.
-- Mark Twain
