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

In article , Eray Ozkural exa writes

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.

Well put. I couldn't do any better.

Note that it was this distinction between "practice" and "philosophy" of science that made me curious in the philosophy of science in the first place :) [1]

When we're doing science at the institute, we don't give a damn about what the spirit of Popper might have to say about it. We just want to produce some good ideas, and tell it in an excellent way. Solve some problem. Maybe define a new problem. Design and implement an experiment. Discuss with other scientists. That sort of thing.

For instance, *several* times we *think* we have *falsified* a theory. But then it crops up back again and we see that our falsification was false, and it was really better at the core than this seemingly more advanced theory. So, we don't proceed at all like some naive philosopher of science might suggest. Sorry to dispel the illusion for Longley and other "soft" scientists, but science doesn't work at all like what some earlier philosophers might tell us.

I really think, in order to notice this, you have to work in a field like physics or mathematics. Not psychology or sociology.

Regards,

[1] And another thing, it was because I found those diagrams of "how to do science" that they taught us at secondary school infinitely stupid. In fact, those "flowcharts about how to do science" are almost always wrong. There was this imbecile girl representing Oracle (graduated from our CS dept!) that tried to *market* *us* their stupid data mining product. She had a "flow chart" of "how to do data mining" that she probably stole from one of the papers about KDD in a well known survey paper. When I showed her how many more arcs there should have been in the diagram, she understood exactly nothing. It's funny how this sort of naive idealization of complex processes come up everywhere. They are, I believe, for fools to believe in.

__ Eray Ozkural

What's the "it" here?

Yes, I know the principles of the scientific method.

Yes, I am quite familiar with philosophy of science.

I'm not sure which you were referring to. I'm not sure what you are considering to be "Theory of Science". If that's the same as philosophy of science, then it gives a poor account of science. If it is something different, I would appreciate any references or web links.

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

What makes you think I oppose peer-review? I never said that. On the contrary, I believe we should understand peer-review better and implement it on public forums where science and philosophy can be discussed, maintaining high quality output and without permitting plagiarism. (Unlike this forum)

If you think falsification *is* peer-review you only acknowledge that you don't know what we are talking about.

Thanks,

__ Eray Ozkural

In article , Eray Ozkural exa writes

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?

How about:

"Pursuit of Truth" "From Stimulus to Science"

Both Harvard Press.

In article , Eray Ozkural exa writes

Have you done as I suggested?

Have you read "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" yet?

All you do is assert that behaviorism is wrong. You are either too stupid or too cowardly to offer any substantive criticism. Indeed, you, like little Danny Michaels, appear to have little clue as to what constitutes legitimate argument. Which of "Skinner's theories" are false, and why? Debate the issues or shut up.

snipped-for-privacy@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural exa) wrote in message

I doubt that *real* scientists will pay much attention to such a prescription coming from a discipline as ineffectual as behaviorist psychology.

Absurd "Just So" stories.

Could you elaborate on that - if only for the benefit of those who won't understand what that dismissal means.

Whilst not really what I said, I'll agree to that. But why would that have any implications for a prescriptive thesis which had its roots in 'behaviorist psychology'.

Lots of people still smoke - does that have any implications for how effectual we should consider oncology?

Incidentally, what are your criteria for an "effectual" physics or an "ineffectual" biology?

I really like the way you distort the whole reality and substantial philosophical theories so they fit your preconception of the world. You do it all the time.

The events that I referred to above are exactly the kind of practice that a real scientist lives, talks about, experiences and breathes.

The explanation of scientific practice is probably not achievable by reading Popper and Quine. I will give a reference to a quite nice and comprehensible *philosophical* article that summarizes how complicated a realistic philosophy of science gets. (In reply to somebody who has actually asked an intelligent question) In fact, it gets so complicated that it no more presents a simple methodology: no flow-charts for animals who want to feel as if they are scientists.

I will also be glad to tell you that you likening Feyerabend's theories to ideas of "adolescent anarchists" is like a middle age priest likening Renaissance thinkers to "young devilists". In fact, anybody who has read Feyerabend would know that the "knowledge anarchy" of Feyerabend has nothing to do with stupid "political anarchy". He says that himself in the first chapter of Against Method. A book that could enlighten you if you could understand, but I doubt you can digest a single argument in that book. It is quite advanced analytical philosophy that requires one to think logically.

It had actually the first philosophical argument I have seen that applies the principle of inclusion and exclusion. I was amazed at his mathematical insight.

Thanks,

__ Eray Ozkural

Cases in-point.

Gregor Mendel was a Monk, but he became a Philosopher when he went into uncharted 'territory' to Reify the fundamentals that have become Genetics.

He was working as an Amateur, not a Pro.

Galileo was a Pro-Mathematician, but he became a Philosopher when he went into uncharted 'territory' to establish the fundamentals of what has become the Scientific Method, and again when he applied his resort to experiment to the rates of falling bodies, and again when he looked around for what he could do with a telescope and discovered the moons of Jupiter.

He was working as an Amateur, not a Pro.

Newton, finding himself in need of fleeing the Plague, filled his 'time' with [Natural] Philosophy, working relatively-alone at a country estate, as an Amateur, going into uncharted 'territory', and plucking the Jewels of Classical 'gravity', and his Laws of Motion out of the nothingness.

Although he Published, Darwin remained a Life-long Amateur because his subject was 'two'-hot-to-handle. He was a Philosopher, relative, to the status quo, because, although he developed his own 'charts', he was pretty 'lonely' in the following of them/

Einstein, working at a Swiss Patent Office, and doing Relativity, photoelectricity, etc., wasn't, then, a Pro Physicist. He was a Philosopher, venturing forth into uncharted 'territory' to discover Jewel-stuff.

This sort of 'break' with Professionalism is always right-there in the midst of Progress.

And it's always more Philosophy than anything else.

Because it's Philosophy, alone, that ventures into the uncharted 'territory' - even, as I discussed in my prior post, when the existence of the 'uncharted territory' 'pops-up' be-cause of a 'show-stopper' within a Professional realm.

If she or he is going to overcome the 'show- stopper', the Professional becomes a Philosopher - throwing off 'constraint', venturing boldly into the unknown in order to 'move toward' Truth which only dimly glimmers in the unwieldy-ness of the 'show-stopper'.

Anything else 'takes the charts along', and follows them, where Philosophy allows the 'charts' to be left, =Respectfully=, on the shelf, and ventures forth to see what's not, yet, 'charted'.

But if the 'charts' are not left behind, and if they're followed, then the 'explorer' isn't actually Exploring. He or she is just following the charts, and will go where they dictate - which dictates the perpetuation of the 'show-stopper'.

Anything else has to 'fear for its hide' with respect to Pro-specialization's coersed- consensus.

Given that it's been so blatently so, it's 'hilarious' that Pro-Science hasn't gotten- it with respect to Philosophy, no?

Yup.

Forgive me, Please.

I mean no 'offense'.

I mean 'just'-the-Opposite stuff.

'moving toward' Truth is everything.

To so 'move' Freely, absence-of-'chains' is a great Boon.

Why what's here is so seemingly- 'offensive' is explained in AoK.

Anyway, saying that this or that is "just philosophy" is "sour grapes" stuff [AoK, Ap7; "volitional diminishing-returns decision" thresholds set 'two'-low.

What's really 'hilarious' is that folks use language of "convenience" to 'justify' V D-R thresholds, because anyone who l ooks can see that the Ravaging of Humanity that derives in such is the Ultimate 'inconvenience'.

So, go ahead, Dare to be Philosopher.

Don't 'burn' them, but do Dare to 'put-aside' the 'charts' [canned modus operandi].

Dare.

And Dare to allow others to also do so.

When the dust of your venturing settles. the 'charts' will still be there in their Respected places.

K. P. Collins

How do you know Steve Waltz referred to the above theories? Do you seriously think those constitute the only philosophical treatment of the subject? Let me tell you: they are not.

By default, I avoid going into a discussion with somebody like you who is lacking average social skills and philosophical character. However, I will not leave your accusations unanswered this time.

I didn't assert that behaviorism is wrong. I basically said I agree with forthcoming philosophical criticism of behaviorism that deny it the status of a valid theory of mind. From that point on, usually, I could choose to filter out the behaviorist non-sense I am confronted with on this list.

However, there are two compelling reasons for me to continue investigation:

1. Some newbies tend to believe your behaviorist rants. Why is that? Is it because behaviorism sounds nice to somebody who knows nothing about philosophy of mind? What is the source of this common sensical illusion?
2. Longley's continuing efforts to a. establish every theory of Quine to be correct b. claim that behaviorism derives from Quine's view of science, and therefore it *must* *be* correct

Reason 2 is particularly interesting because I believe I have done better than Quine in some respects when it comes to philosophy of mind and I don't think Longley's "magical" assertions rest on Quine. I am trying to decide to which extent I agree with Quine on philosophy of science, probably not too much. I will explain in a reply to David.

Thanks,

__ Eray Ozkural

In article , Eray Ozkural exa writes

The above, like your earlier post, is just bizarre.

In article , Eray Ozkural exa writes

Ok, I'm just about to draw an end to all of this.

Look again at "Against Method" - do you realise that Feyerabend was setting up a case to be knocked down by Lakatos - but that the latter died before this dialectic could be established.

Sorry Eray - I've had enough of all of this.

I wish you good luck with your revolutionary thinking.