Some 3-D Trig [was Re: Mar...]

'COMPTOND.BAS - a simple animation of the Compton scattering data. 'RUN INSTRUCTIONS FOLLOW ---------------------------------------------
'this QBasic program uses the Compton equation to calculate 'delta energy ['line' plot] for scattering angles from 1 to 180.
'It then uses the delta energy values to map the 'compression'-'expansion' 'dynamics of 'atoms' into a simulation of their spherical Geometry.
'The two separate plots are synchronized, so that the delta energy trace is 'always correlated with SSW<->UES harmonic phase in the 'spherical' trace.
'In the plot in the viewport on the left: ' The 'compression' phase of the SSW<->UES harmonics is in RED. ' The 'expansion' phase of the SSW<->UES harmonics is in BLUE. ' Delta energy is ploted vertically in red. ' Theta is plotted horizontally in cyan.
'The main point of the program is to disclose that the Compton equation 'just traces the SSW<->UES harmonics as they are reified in Tapered Harmony.
'The meaning of this 'main point' is that the Compton equation, and all of 'quantum mechanics' just APPROXIMATE the SSW<->UES harmonics that are reified 'in Tapered Harmony.
'Look closely, and you can see the iteration-to-iteration variation- 'diminutions that coincide with the SSW<->UES harmonics coming up against 'their fully 'compressed' [0 deg] and fully 'expanded' [180 deg] extents. '[Look for this in the relative densities within the 'spherical' plot - best 'viewed when the yellow "e" is visible.]
'The fully 'compressed' 'state' coincides with what has been referred to as 'the "atomic nucleus". It's where delta energy is greatest because the 'decting energy collides solidly. As the SSW<->UES harmonic 'expands', energy 'values and scattering angles decrease because there's less solid stuff to 'collide with.
'Note the tight correlation between the Compton approximation energy and 'delta energy values with respect to the physically real spherical Geometry 'of a Spherical standing wave undergoing 'compression' and 'expansion', 'harmonically.
'Physical reality is CONTINUOUS. What have been referred to as "atoms" are 'actually spherical standing waves in 'compression'-'expansion' harmonic 'interaction with an energy-surround - the Universal Energy Supply [UES].
'All the rest of 'qm' is just the same stuff - APPROXIMATION of the 'Deterministic SSW<->UES harmonic energydynamics. Approximation that's 'been calculated by invoking non-existent 'quanta'.
'Tapered Harmony describes a Deterministic, Continuous physical reality, in 'which infinitely-'fluid' energy just flows, 'trapping' quantities of energy 'CONTINUOUSLY, within Spherical Standing Wave harmonics, as a function of 'relatively-local UES [Universal Energy Supply] 'pressure'.
'qm' describes the Same-Stuff via a APPROXIMATE Statistical approaches.
'For further discussion of Tapered Harmony's fundamentals, do a Groups 'Google (tm) on the Internet.
'RUN the app by opening it in QBasic, and hitting F5.
'To terminate the iteration, hit the <Esc> key. The app will complete 'the current iteration.
'This is the best program state in which to study the density-variations 'inherent in the spherical simulation trace.
'When the yellow "e" appears, hit the "e" key to terminate the app. 'Hitting any other key will rerun the animation
'If you want to single-step the program, uncomment the "PauseQ" statements. '[remove the "'" in the leftmost column] or add more of your own.
'In QBasic, the subroutines can be accessed by hitting F2.
'(c) by K. P. Collins, Thursday, 2002-11-28.
DECLARE SUB SSW () DECLARE SUB Plots (wl0!, deMax!, theta!, culor1%, culor2%) DECLARE SUB PauseQ () SCREEN 12
CONST slow% = 0 'change this to -1 if you want the thing to single-step 'at 1-second intervals [~3 minutes per phase]. 'When running "slowly", holding down the <Ctrl? key 'overrides. CONST PI = 3.141593 CONST h = 6.626E-34 CONST me = 9.11E-31 CONST c = 3E+08
begin:
SSW
GOTO begin
SUB PauseQ
COLOR 14: LOCATE 1, 79: PRINT "e" 114 a$ = INKEY$: IF a$ = "" THEN GOTO 114 IF a$ = "C" OR a$ = "c" THEN CLS IF a$ = "E" OR a$ = "e" THEN COLOR 7: END COLOR 0: LOCATE 1, 79: PRINT "e": COLOR 7
END SUB
SUB Plots (wl0!, deMax!, theta!, culor1%, culor2%)
'calc delta wavelength dwl! = (h! / (me! * c!)) * (1 - COS(theta! * (PI / 180!))) * 10 ^ 9
IF dwl! <> 0 THEN de! = dwl! / wl0! 'calc delta energy VIEW WINDOW
'draw SSW<->UES harmonic simulation CIRCLE (410, 240), ABS(deMax! - de!) * 9000, culor1%
VIEW (3, 1)-(180, 460), , 7 'set the viewport for the line plots WINDOW (-5, -.0045)-(183, .03)
LOCATE 3, 5: PRINT " " 'erase prior delta energy COLOR 4 LOCATE 3, 5: PRINT de! 'print delta energy LOCATE 27, 5: PRINT " " 'erase prior Theta COLOR 3 LOCATE 27, 10: PRINT theta! 'print Theta
PSET (theta!, de!), culor2% 'plot delta energy @ Theta
IF culor1% = 0 THEN 'if erasing plots LINE (0, 0)-(theta!, 0), 3 LINE (0, 0)-(0, de!), 12 'plot Theta ELSE LINE (0, 0)-(180, 0), 0 LINE (0, 0)-(theta!, 0), 3 'plot Theta LINE (0, 0)-(0, deMax!), 0 LINE (0, 0)-(0, de!), 12 'plot delta energy END IF
IF slow% THEN SLEEP 1 'single steps at 1 second intervals [runs slowly] END IF 'PauseQ END IF
END SUB
SUB SSW CONST ESC = 27
'this step discloses that the Compton equation just traces the SSW<->UES 'Harmonics delta energy.
CLS COLOR 7 LOCATE 1, 32: PRINT "Compton Scattering & SSW<->UES Harmonics" LOCATE 2, 2: PRINT "Compton delta energy" LOCATE 28, 4: PRINT "Scattering angle"
wl0! = .2 'xrays 0.20 nm deMax! = ((h! / (me! * c!)) * (1 - COS(180! * (PI / 180))) / wl0!) * 10 ^ 9
FOR theta! = 180! TO 1! STEP -1 Plots wl0!, deMax!, theta!, 4, 9 'PauseQ NEXT 'PauseQ IF slow% THEN PauseQ END IF
WHILE INKEY$ <> CHR$(ESC) FOR theta! = 0! TO 180! Plots wl0!, deMax!, theta!, 0, 12 'PauseQ NEXT 'PauseQ IF slow% THEN PauseQ END IF
FOR theta! = 180! TO 0! STEP -1 Plots wl0!, deMax!, theta!, 4, 9 'PauseQ NEXT 'PauseQ IF slow% THEN PauseQ END IF WEND PauseQ
END SUB
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The programs address the most-Basic stuff of Tapered Harmony.
They are 'hacks', done only to correlate the SSW<->UES 'compression'-'expansion' harmonics with the Compton 'scattering' data, demonstrating that it's been Compton Refraction all along. [Not calculated in either of these Qbasic apps: The 'catenaries' in Compton-type experiments are close analogues of the stuff that underpins experimental data that is held [Erroneously] to 'substantiate Bells' Inequality.]
Tapered Harmony continues forever in the 'same' way - literally to Infinity in both directions [infinity-small, infinitely-big], al- ways using the Principles that are depicted in the two Qbasic apps i posted, and WDB2T, which is not depicted in either of these apps. I know of no experimental results in any Physical Science that are not already Rigorously-integrated within Tapered Harmony, and The theory is able to incorp- orate new experimental results without 'breaking-stride' [I discussed recent RHIC results in bionet.neuroscience about a week ago.] To the degree of such, TH is, of course, Verified.
Happy New Future!
K. P. Collins
-- "Schmitd! Schmitd! Ve vill build a Shapel!"
<DIV>[...]</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is the sort of reasoning which permeates much that you write, so I'd be grateful if you would spell out more clearly where I go wrong in rephrasing the above.
You seem to be saying that you have a theory which already explains the results of known physical sciences. You then go on to say that this theory is verified by the fact that this theory is able to incorporate new experimental results without any problems.
Isn't this precisely a definition of pseudo-science? (I'd cite Popper here but it seems reasonably obvious).
The "theory" doesn't seem to say anything that current theory doesn't already say, and it doesn't look like it can be contradicted by any future evidence either. It tells us nothing new now, but it is unfalsifiable. It's untestable.
One of the things that Popper is appreciated for is highlighting why pseudo-scientific theories *are* pseudo-science. As I see it you have pretty much told everyone that your theory is as pseudo-science.
--
David Longley

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes | > I know of no experimental results in any | > Physical Science that are not already | > Rigorously-integrated within Tapered | > Harmony, and The theory is able to incorp- | > orate new experimental results without | > 'breaking-stride' [I discussed recent RHIC | > results in bionet.neuroscience about a week | > ago.] To the degree of such, TH is, of course, | > Verified. | > | > Happy New Future! | > | > K. P. Collins | | This is the sort of reasoning which permeates much that you write, so | I'd be grateful if you would spell out more clearly where I go wrong in | rephrasing the above. | | You seem to be saying that you have a theory which already explains the | results of known physical sciences. You then go on to say that this | theory is verified by the fact that this theory is able to incorporate | new experimental results without any problems. | | Isn't this precisely a definition of pseudo-science? (I'd cite Popper | here but it seems reasonably obvious). | | The "theory" doesn't seem to say anything that current theory doesn't | already say, and it doesn't look like it can be contradicted by any | future evidence either. It tells us nothing new now, but it is | unfalsifiable. It's untestable. | | One of the things that Popper is appreciated for is highlighting why | pseudo-scientific theories *are* pseudo-science. As I see it you have | pretty much told everyone that your theory is as pseudo-science. | | | -- | David Longley
You've just not read, sufficiently, with respect to TH, 'cause, if you had, you'd've realized that TH is not as you 'claim' it to be in what's quoted above.
As I've explained a couple of tomes in other posts here in c.ai.ph, I've been discussing both NDT & TH online for ~15 years, and I write for folks who've been following the discussions all along.
I tend not to be 'led around by the nose' by folks who are 'fishing' for stuff that's already been reiterated sufficiently - be- cause I pay-my-own-way, and I do with my small resources what I Know is their best use.
It's well-documented that, if you'd've shown any interest in any approach other than 'personal attack' - e.g. posing a question with respect to a particular experimental result - you'd've faired better in our 'interaction', David,
But all you do is this 'personal-attack' stuff.
I'm supposed to do what with respect to such?
So, I stand on what I've posted.
'go away'.
K. P. collins
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's not personal attack - perhaps what I say is just news or new to you. What I say is said benevolently.
Be that as it may - in this post I'd just like to thank you for dispensing with the unconventional capitalisation and hyphenation. It makes reading what you write much easier.
--
David Longley

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Schmitd! Schmitd! Ve vill build a Shapel!"
writes | >| > I know of no experimental results in any | >| > Physical Science that are not already | >| > Rigorously-integrated within Tapered | >| > Harmony, and The theory is able to incorp- | >| > orate new experimental results without | >| > 'breaking-stride' [I discussed recent RHIC | >| > results in bionet.neuroscience about a week | >| > ago.] To the degree of such, TH is, of course, | >| > Verified. | >| > | >| > Happy New Future! | >| > | >| > K. P. Collins | >| | >| This is the sort of reasoning which permeates much that you write, | >so | >| I'd be grateful if you would spell out more clearly where I go | >wrong in | >| rephrasing the above. | >| | >| You seem to be saying that you have a theory which already explains | >the | >| results of known physical sciences. You then go on to say that this | >| theory is verified by the fact that this theory is able to | >incorporate | >| new experimental results without any problems. | >| | >| Isn't this precisely a definition of pseudo-science? (I'd cite | >Popper | >| here but it seems reasonably obvious). | >| | >| The "theory" doesn't seem to say anything that current theory | >doesn't | >| already say, and it doesn't look like it can be contradicted by any | >| future evidence either. It tells us nothing new now, but it is | >| unfalsifiable. It's untestable. | >| | >| One of the things that Popper is appreciated for is highlighting | >why | >| pseudo-scientific theories *are* pseudo-science. As I see it you | >have | >| pretty much told everyone that your theory is as pseudo-science. | >| | >| | >| -- | >| David Longley | > | >You've just not read, sufficiently, with | >respect to TH, 'cause, if you had, you'd've | >realized that TH is not as you 'claim' it to | >be in what's quoted above. | > | >As I've explained a couple of tomes in | >other posts here in c.ai.ph, I've been | >discussing both NDT & TH online for ~15 | >years, and I write for folks who've been | >following the discussions all along. | > | >I tend not to be 'led around by the nose' | >by folks who are 'fishing' for stuff that's | >already been reiterated sufficiently - be- | >cause I pay-my-own-way, and I do with | >my small resources what I Know is their | >best use. | > | >It's well-documented that, if you'd've | >shown any interest in any approach | >other than 'personal attack' - e.g. posing | >a question with respect to a particular | >experimental result - you'd've faired | >better in our 'interaction', David, | > | >But all you do is this 'personal-attack' | >stuff. | > | >I'm supposed to do what with respect | >to such? | > | >So, I stand on what I've posted. | > | >'go away'. | > | >K. P. collins | > | > | It's not personal attack - perhaps what I say is just news or new to | you. What I say is said benevolently. | [...] | -- | David Longley
I stand on what I posted.
What you've 'said' is B.S.
K. P. Collins
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think you should read Popper's responses to folk like Lakatos. If you take Feyerabend seriously you are making a big mistake. And Kuhn is doing a psychology of science. The cases made by Lakatos and Feyerabend were supposed to be healthy dialectic by two people who had great respect for Popper, Feyerabend makes the point that his polemic was supposed to be swatted by Lakatos, who died before he could do this. For a good treatment of the practical good sense of Popper's philosophy, see P E Meehl's "Theoretical Risks & Tabular Asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald and the Slow Progress of Soft Psychology" J. Consul and Clin Psychol. 1978.
The basics of Popper's contribution are pretty unassailable. As conjunctions of observation statements become compounded (ANDed) the likelihood of one being wrong increases. As the power of a predictive theory increases, it risks being falsified more readily, as falsifying any one of it's founding observations or predictions is enough to bring the whole theory down. This is why the hard sciences derive esoteric predictions from their theories and try to test them.
What folk do to defend their theories etc is not necessarily good science. Kuhn provides a psychology of science, not a philosophy of science. Even so, most of what you find in Kuhn, you'll find in "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" (as others have remarked).
Quine endorsed Popper's logic of falsificationism in a number of *his* contributions regarding the philosophy of science.

But we don't.

Sure. You're serious about what? have you ever used a Skinner Box?

And what would that "experiment" predict or demonstrate? Don't you think you should at least read Ken's "AoK" first?
--
David Longley

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not sure if this is the proper place to discuss philosophy of science but as a "hard" scientist I have a lot of respect for Feyerabend who cut through a lot of make-belief about science by bigots who were *not* scientists, both in psychology and philosophy of science. What I really want to know is those who came after Feyerabend. I've been told that the recent works on "theory of truth" are more sophisticated than both Popper and Feyerabend (while Feyerabend is admittedly much more sophisticated than Popper).

Doesn't the above sound to you like a simplistic account of the nature?

You won't find them in Popper's insufficient work.

The problem with Popper is that he cannot explain at all how revolutionary views are formed in science. And that is, for instance, the only reason I am doing science. I am not a mindless automaton following a few idealized forms of reasoning about science. I can compute in many ways IN ADDITION to that kind of logic. Also, I am wise enough to know that no theory is meant to explain everything AND that facts are DEPENDENT on other theories. These are all purported by Feyerabend and Popper lacks such a deep understanding. (Because he isn't a scientist)

I am saying Ken claims so.

I am serious that behaviorism is pseudo-science. It rests on a number of unhealthy _assumptions_ that is not the way of science.
AFAICT, Skinner Box is a prison. Not a box.

It is satisfactory that the experiment's prediction contradicts quantum physics OR it is something that quantum physics says nothing about. Then physicists will attend to his theory.
BTW, you sound as if you think "falsification" is something real scientists give credence to. This could only be thought by somebody who doesn't know how deeply physical theories of 20th century contradict and how wildly they vary.
Thanks,
__ Eray Ozkural
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Works like "Pursuit of Truth" W.V.O Quine perhaps?

No.
You won't find *what* in his work?

You're evidently very young - I'm suggest to you that normal science is the important stuff. Just imagine if *everyone* was busy doing revolutionary science - particularly when it wasn't called for. We frequently see examples of that even here in these newsgroups. Working as a scientist is, as has been said by many, largely perspiration and frustration.

Oh... silly old Popper - bit of a world changer though eh?

see Popper in "Objective Knowledge" on Hume's problem - poached eggs etc.

Try telling that to all the pharmaceutical houses that use the technology for behaviour assays, or the hoards of neuroscientists using it, or the clinical practitioners.......
Though I know I'm wasting my time here - it's all such hard work...it isn't a good read is it??

Same could be said about a cyclotron or fume cupboard.

if they don't "give credence" to falsificationism, then how do they ever learn Eray?
Don't tell me.... they're right all the time.......
--
David Longley

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| >> Isn't this precisely a definition of pseudo-science? (I'd cite Popper | >> here but it seems reasonably obvious). | >> | >> The "theory" doesn't seem to say anything that current theory doesn't | >> already say, and it doesn't look like it can be contradicted by any | >> future evidence either. It tells us nothing new now, but it is | >> unfalsifiable. It's untestable. | >> | >> One of the things that Popper is appreciated for is highlighting why | >> pseudo-scientific theories *are* pseudo-science. As I see it you have | >> pretty much told everyone that your theory is as pseudo-science. | > | >Not in defense of Ken's theory... I'm not a physicist and I don't | >think I have the time to find out whether it is correct. | > | >Short. Popper's theory was naive. | > | >Falsifiability was evidently a wrong or insufficient notion as showed | >by later philosophers of science who understood scientific theories. | >(Popper not having too much insight about hard sciences didn't really | >understand the extent of "fact" and "theory") | [...]
| The basics of Popper's contribution are pretty unassailable. As | conjunctions of observation statements become compounded (ANDed) the | likelihood of one being wrong increases.
Nervous systems don't do simple "ANDing".
| As the power of a predictive | theory increases, it risks being falsified more readily, as falsifying | any one of it's founding observations or predictions is enough to bring | the whole theory down.
:-]
| This is why the hard sciences derive esoteric | predictions from their theories and try to test them.
:-]
| What folk do to defend their theories etc is not necessarily good | science. Kuhn provides a psychology of science, not a philosophy of | science. | [...]
The best book I've ever read in pure-Science is Kuhn's, =The Copernican Revolution=.
| [...] | > | >In particular, if you have a new formulation of physics that can | >explain everything known that's a wonderful thing. It is OF COURSE not | >pseudo-science. | > | | But we don't. | | >A good example for pseudo-science is "behaviorism" a la Skinner. I am | >quite serious. It's just like Alchemy. | | Sure. You're serious about what? have you ever used a Skinner Box? | | | > | >Ken merely claims to have something like superstring theory in a | >sense. And also pertinent in his claims is a model of reality that is | >based on continuous functions. That would likely result in phenomena | >incompatible with a quantum formulation and it could be tested with a | >proper experiment. He just needs to design one experiment if he is | >serious. | > | >Thanks, | > | >__ | >Eray Ozkural | | And what would that "experiment" predict or demonstrate? Don't you think | you should at least read Ken's "AoK" first? | | | -- | David Longley
Tapered Harmony is a theory in Physics. It's not discussed in AoK.
Its basics werethe original topic of this thread.
Frankly, I Agree with everything I've read of what Eray has posted [except some 'heat', which is understandable in light of what I've read of your posts, David.]
K. P. Collins
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Amusing, David. You should know better that I'm an AI researcher (at least in heart) and he is interested in neuroscience. We probably have quite different approaches to the problem.
Ken's remarks about agreeing with me were about philosophy of science, because he has read Kuhn and he understands it.
I didn't say I have verified or really understood Ken's claims. If you have noticed I don't talk about what I don't understand well enough.
I will come back to dissection of your futile theory later. Now I have more substantial work to do.
Thanks,
__ Eray Ozkural
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You mean you are an undergraduate student with aspirations to do research.

I'm not sure Ken understands much of what he reads. I'm sure most folk don't understand Kuhn at all. The sort of "understanding" one frequently sees in newsgroups and undergraduate essays is little more than an illustration of *ARROGANT* adolescent epistemological anarchism (without the rationale that Feyerabend claims to have had). It's the sort of "understanding" which is taken to justify some of the worst types of undisciplined, eclectic and worst of all, uninformed (by research) thinking which in my view is anathema to real work in science. We just don't need Ken's brand of revolutionary thinking I'm afraid - it's arrogant, ill-informed, neologistic, unfalsifiable metaphysics - and by taking the stance which you have towards it when others have tried (benevolently) to get Ken to see what's wrong with his behaviour will just reinforce his delusory behaviour - the evidence is here for everyone to see. Ken may well be hurt by the criticisms, but so he should be.
Wake up Eray.

I have noticed exactly the opposite - as I have said several times.

Oh.. *thank you* Eray!
Translated into reality-speak you mean you'll come back in the hope of getting some free education <g>.
--
David Longley

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You certainly *write* like an undergraduate, or at least, someone who might be admitted to such a programme.

Well, to start with, you usually find rats or pigeons in Skinner Boxes. You might find dogs in a "Shuttle Box". I don't know what you're trying to "break" either. Do you think you're going to change empirical reality by arguing with me?

Ok, so what makes you think that any of that qualifies you to judge the merits of behavioural science, the work of Skinner, or my own for that matter? Data mining? Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on that for us all? And you say you are working on "machine learning". Then do tell us, how does anything "learn"? How do machines "learn"?

How about my having designed, run and examined a university course in Computing and Statistics for MSc students for several years? I've been working with computers, developing systems since the early 1980s. Some might also list me as having professional expertise in the area. Does any of that "qualify" me to speak? I'm an applied Psychologist - not an academic.

Is that right Eray? It's clear that there's more than just a considerable age difference between us - But then one might have expected someone with your experience to have checked your facts (e.g. by looking at the biography at my website) before you posted this diatribe.

The alternative might be to show a little humility, realise you still have a lot to learn and most of all.. listen and take the advice given to you.
--
David Longley

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I just got Konqueror to crash so the long reply I wrote went away. Merits of being a hacker and using CVS HEAD (yeah we're saving the world :/ )

I am working towards a PhD degree in computer science. I have a bachelor's and master's degree in computer science. I told you before that I'm a PhD student. Do you remember when I told you many times I had to attend to my PhD studies and therefore would be unable to conduct discussion?
That's why I think you are launching a crude personal attack. Just because I said I will eliminate your theory. There is no doubt I will do that, but in addition I will offer a lot of positive criticism which will improve your theories.
I am also a hacker which has nothing to do with my academic expertise. I used to do realtime 3d CG in assembly maybe 10 years ago, so it sounds quite funny to me when somebody talks about relational databases and simple statistics which is kids' stuff nowadays. (DB theory is not that simple, but it's far from being the hottest thing in CS) Remember that we are in 21st century.
I am still regretting that you are forcing me to a "piss contest" with you. I never boasted with my academic credentials in other circles on this newsgroup. On the USENET I am nobody, and I exist solely on the strength of my ideas. That is why I do not talk of who I am or what I have accomplished unless it is absolutely necessary.

No I don't think I'm going to change empirical reality. I think I'm going to change your mind, maybe without you even realizing it.
What I meant was that your reaction wasn't well thought.

Although I do philosophy for fun, I have learnt a lot about philosophy of mind and philosophy of language at the university and in my private studies. From the view point of such philosophy, it is easy to see many flaws in Skinner. His philosophy is very weak. The empirical work is something else, and can be useful. That's another matter.
Of course, there is also the work I'm familiar with in AI. Today, machine learning and data mining says much more about learning than you can do with experiments involving animals or prisoners. In fact, I think we cover all of the mathematics relevant to work of behavioral psychologists with the basic problem definitions which would take 20 pages at most (chapter 1 of a typical ML text).
As you might guess those simply define the "data" you are seeing and what learning tasks you are trying to achieve. Broadly there is classification, clustering, regression, summarization and deviation analysis among the kinds of learning one might want to accomplish (There are other major tasks, too). I have worked on problems from the first four categories I mentioned, and my current research is about a core problem in summarization.
If you want a philosophical result from machine learning it is that algorithms matter the most. That is, the *functions* that are learning processes *inside* the mind of the intelligent being.
I would like to work on meta-learning architectures and high level control mechanisms (like consciousness and emotions) in the future.

MSc students of what? :) Psychology?
Thanks,
__ Eray Ozkural
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I do now that you've reminded me. I guess I forgot. I don't tend to think about these things normally unless they seem relevant, and I'm afraid whether you like it or not, my original assessment stands. You may well be doing a PhD in Computer Science, but we aren't discussing Computer Science issues are we? What we're discussing are issues to do with Psychology, the Philosophy of Mind, and some related themes of modern philosophy and the implications these have for AI. In my view, you write like an early undergraduate (if that) on these issues. What I mean by that is that you seem to have a rather superficial knowledge of the subjects involved. This may make sense in the light of what your background is in.

I really don't think you should take such offence at what I've said. I've been doing this a lot longer and I've heard so much of what you've said before. Do you not think that's likely?

Fine - except I'm not an academic - my expertise is in systems development and management in applied science. The multivariate statistics I use and teach may well be *simple* in some senses, but they suffice given the task requirements. Database technology is just over thirty years old in my book. Less than 20 years ago one would have to resort to commercial mainframe time if one wanted to analyse relational data or use multivariate *simple* statistics. The last time I looked, ORACLE were doing pretty well on NASDAQ.

Once again - I was informing you of the limited grasp you have of a number of important areas of research which you insist on *criticizing* and which you clearly have little of no competence in. To be told, nevertheless, (repeatedly) that you would demolish what I regard as important (and quite difficult to master) "theories" etc which are central to my area of expertise, is, to say the least either very arrogant or very stupid. I say it again - you don't know enough Psychology or Philosophy.

The only thing you're going to change with this sort of nonsense is my inclination to correspond with you. I'm learning next to nothing from these exchanges.

But it's NOT another matter. That's the whole point of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior.
Listen Eray - hundreds of undergraduates have bleated all of the things that you (and some others in this newsgroup) have said. It's all been heard before. You've been fortunate to have a couple of people who have not only been through that themselves, but also gone on to have first hand experience with the technology. You want to tell us what's wrong? Do you really think you're going to come up with something which hasn't occurred to thousands of others? If you *did* do you not think we'd say so and engage you in a different manner?

I'm sorry - I thought you dismissed the statistics I use and teach as *simple*?

UH huh - algorithms = effective processes - in "minds", inside 'intelligent' beings. You see no problem talking like that?

"meta-learning architectures" ? What are these - is meta being used in the sense of metaphysics or meta-analysis perhaps? or as an alternative to virtual?
So you've already solved all the problems which Curt and other folk are working on?
Perhaps you could help him out a little?
--
David Longley

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Warning: This is just an Eray flame. It's not very serious-minded but just casual commentary. Don't want to waste anybody's time.

What does writing like an "undergraduate" mean? Some high schools in the U.S. provide a better education than some colleges in the U.S. Some people experience home schooling. Some people don't have higher education but are very studious. Some people I've hired with a college education (3.0+ GPA) can't manage a single-page business letter that accomplishes any purpose.

People like Curt and I clean up their messes. God save organizations from using software "donated" by CS departments and "my nephew the programmer." But at least give them a "class project," and not something by one Phd student.

I wonder where those 2 years, 12/7 in the cellar required to write a serious program accomplishing "data mining" and "parallel computing" fits in with all the "personal study" in philosophy and psychology, Phd studies, and classes, not to mention newsgroup posting? Are we talking about a university "computer lab" with all those distractions? 50 or 100 minutes once or twice a day?

B.S. Degree if these posts are representative. Let's have a link to his CNET review or equivalent. And I didn't mean Bachelor of Science.

Eray isn't. He's discussing Computer Science *words*.

What background? First you study, keeping your mouth shut and paying respect to your teachers. Then you go into whatever field. Then other's carry you along, put up with you, and help you out for a couple of years while you make a continuous stream of stupid mistakes that later cause you no end of embarrassment. Then you practice for 20+ years. Then you have "background." If you remain a student, you remain a student, never having to meet any test but a "grade." That's not the real world. Grades are easy. If you want a high one, just just work harder, and you almost always get it. In the real world, you work your ass off and usually get nothing. But you pick up the pieces and try again, and eventually you may make the real "grade," otherwise known as real accomplishment or track-record, also known as growing up. If one wants to remain a professional student, fine, get published. Provide a link to your book on Amazon, or papers in respected scientific journals.

What sort of person issues intellectual threats? Has temper tantrums? Makes distinctions forever? Says the word "why" 7 times in a row until you run out of answers (pushing you into metaphysics)? I hope when Eray grows up and has some teenage Erays of his own, he doesn't think there's anything "inherited." Most educated teenagers are like that, and I've known some who could talk up a metaphysical storm just like Eray.

There's some logic.

Oh, that's just so impressive. What kid doesn't write assembler computer games next thing after the "Hello world" program. I wrote them in my 1st year too. It's nothing. Lots of other posters did too. But in those days it was a lot more low level than in 1993. You got a cartidge, 80 opcodes, and maybe 20K of memory to work with, and you programmed every scan line individually. Yet some programmers turned that into real computer games *in marketable form* that people actually *bought*, with reviews they could *link to* with *their name* at the top.

Funny coming from someone who talks about "SQL" and the databases that go with it, like they are going to have any applicability to AI. Let's have a link to the AI database Eray has designed from the ground up and beta-tested, designed for processors 10 years from now, or at least a definition. Oh yeah, I forgot, the paper would be too long, it would be too complex to post, etc., etc. Meaning the terminology will be the same pop lingo we've gotten to date.

Eray has been doing the piss contest since the beginning. You are just providing a forum for her to reiterate her bachelor and masters degrees and that she is a "Phd student." What I want to know is: If she has all these degrees and is in some "university" why does she never supply input from any collegues, except the one physicist she mentioned (and rated - as he gives his "Eray Rating" to everyone he mentions)? Is this a two-man university? Does anybody there talk to him? This doesn't add up. Some of the criticism he has received could easily be resolved by a walk down the hall in any university I know of. And why doesn't this university require students to seek out persons of real accomplishment? Or bring them in to lecture? Why is it always a book? Some crazy university, or a lot of people avoiding Eray, or something else that doesn't add up.

Yeah, right. How about the moderator post where he said everybody needed a bachelors degree? (and plenty else).

The rejection of his ideas is why he keeps resorting to the degrees and the temper tantrums. So, like Descartes who forgot to think for a second, Poof!, no more Usenet presence that matters.

Which seems to be very frequently, usually by not-so-clever and not-so-subtle implication, and why do you think it is so necessary?

Brain programming again. Eray is going to program Longley's brain. I already saw one example. Lot's of luck.

The bottom line. And no respect for *free* personal surgically-maximized teaching either. What do you normally get per hour, David?

The above says nothing. Algorithm is a stupid word for programmers. Programmers write programs, subroutines, code-blocks, DLL's, etc. What programmer sits down to write an "algorithm." I can't remember hearing it in any programmer group in 20 years (I'm sure it was). It's a fancy word in the literature, that's all. The Blowfish author didn't sit down to write an "algorithm" (though always called that in the literature), he sat down to write an encryption program. Data mining is a mundane chore. Inferential searches, tautological searches, it's all being done by thousands of *experienced* programmers light-years ahead of Eray. Parallel programming (not "computing") can be a can of worms, or just a fancy word, or anywhere in-between.

Thanks again for the reminder that you are at a university. That is most impressive. But does he actually walk in the door, or just hang out on the steps? Does Eray come from some country where only one in a thousand attend a university? Last time I heard, about half of H.S. students in the U.S. go to college. Whatever, it's no big deal here. Nobody I know even mentions it, certainly not me. I have a good friend I've known for about 8 years, and I only recently found out he has masters degrees in both CS and engineering. I'm looking at 10,000 pages of language and Window's documentation I have to replace and learn about every three years. Wish I were back in college so I could have some fun. What's the big deal about degrees with Eray?

The "Run" button please? Programming isn't like psychology or philosophy. There is always a good empirical test. Like at the chess club nobody wants to hear you tell them how great you are, just what your USCF rating is. Or in music, ok, sing or play for 30 seconds. That's why you don't hear the experienced programmers in this group boasting to each other about how great they are.

Great. Another paper that would prove everything, but is just too long or "Eray terminology challeged" to understand.

Fancy way of saying he wrote a computer program. Big deal. Link to the CNET review (or equivalent)?

Again, not in the programming groups I've read for 20 years.

I wish I had a dime for every time Eray has used the term "function." Is this "higher math" he keeps talking about algebra? If it's programming, a "function" is simply a subroutine that returns a value. f(X) is the key to AI? Sure, sounds pretty mysterious to me.

I'd like to work on a unified field theory. But unfortunately I'm not qualified, and I'm mature enough to realize it. But I suppose I could talk up a storm. "Quantum anti-proton plasma synthesis effects on the Swarthchild limit in white hole parity" by Larry Fine. Get your copy today.

Hah. Comparing Eray and Curt. What a joke. Better to compare Eray and Ken, but Ken has demonstrated more programming experience than Eray. At least he has programmed long enough in one sitting for his sugar content to go down.
Another thing that doesn't add up. I've noticed since Eray's very first post (where she immediately called one author "smarter" than another by the way), she is very sloppy about logic, especially terms, like the average person. I can apply charity as well as the next guy and logic experience doesn't mean anything regarding content, but my point is: Doesn't a study of philosophy necessarily include logic? What CS department doesn't require logic courses? And he also threw out the term "incompleteness theorem" at me one time, but he didn't know if it applied to classical logic or not. (Let him keep wondering.)
When I start proving my arguments by listing my degrees, throwing temper tantrums, and writing spaced-out philosophy of the not-altogether-here kind, intellectual threats, or thinly disguised religion, then I will be inviting some personal criticism too.
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@lycos.co.uk (Acme Debugging) writes:

Why stop at one page when you can waffle on dropping TLA upon FLA generously peppered with unrelated buzzwords for fourteen pages? :-)
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah. And these days you're lucky if the legal dept. will let you put anything in writing, including "Hi, thanks, have a nice day." (That could interpreted as confirming receipt of something that might possibly incur some liability some day.) You have to learn how to compose a letter that says absolutely nothing at all. Maybe that's one of those secret reasons some people are posting in newsgroups?
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
These two paragraphs are really funny.
In the first he says a portion of computer science is unnecessary. He says it's just programming. It's also quite funny that this guy compares his programming to mine. Anyway. The second is even more fun, because he talks about me not being the top hacker I said I was. Well, it doesn't really bother me when lamers make this kind of remarks. But if, you know if a hacker had said something about a program I wrote I might have something to say and fix a bug or two.
I also like "*experienced* programmers light-years ahead of Eray" phrase. You idiot, I designed a core parallel data mining algorithm and made tons of experiments with its implementation among other experimental machine learning codes. What the hell do you think data mining research consists of?
90% of the lamers in the industry aren't better than what I was in my freshmen year and before. Now buzz off.
snipped-for-privacy@lycos.co.uk (Acme Debugging) wrote in message

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural exa) wrote in message

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.