O. W. Grant
Registered Senior Member
Prof Kenneth Young on "A Special Lecture: Principle of Least Action"
1:06 min. - 3:50 min.
1:06 min. - 3:50 min.
a word of caution, Prof. Kenneth Young
- Thread starter O. W. Grant
- Start date
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
What is the point you wish to discuss?
O. W. Grant
Registered Senior Member
Hi, exchemist,
I am just making a stand. My reasoning most probably is wrong, of course it is wrong, but what counts is new ideas.
What stand are you making and what is your reasoning ?
(I can't be bothered to watch the video unless you explain yourself first)
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Geordief makes the point exactly.
Explain what point you wish to raise. We are not going to watch a video without explanation, and try to guess for ourselves what your point may be.
O. W. Grant
Registered Senior Member
Hi, exchemist and geordief,
From 1:06 to 3:50, for 2:44 min. Prof. Kenneth Young explains to his students that extracting knowledge is messy process, full of doubts, lots of wrong ideas and it takes long time. It is easy to be SMART - A+ grade student.
Many people get a degree. Most of them become clerks or commit themselves to business. In both cases to make money, to make a living.
Acquiring knowledge is ungrateful, dangerous and not well paid work.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Oh yes, any of us that has had any contact with scientific research will be very much aware of that. In fact in my case that is why (after my "Part 2 year", which was a year of research) I decided academic research was not for me, though my career was spent mostly involved with the commercialisation of research, in various forms, as a patent agent and then as a technologist and marketer in the lubricants industry.
But I'm not quite sure why you think this observation in the video is cautionary, exactly, nor what "stand" you are taking. I watched an extract from the video and noted he describes two complementary aspects of science: the bottom-up data gathering of research, which is messy, and the top-down application of theories that simplify and make sense of that messy data.
O. W. Grant
Registered Senior Member
Hi, exchemist,
His audience is young and romantic about everything.
The professor (a survivor - both in science and in bureaucratic machine) in his 1st part gives a word of warning/caution - not to be romantic and in the 2nd part, as you say, he gives them knowledge - "describes two complementary aspects of science: ..."
About my stand:
Some see my thread "of-with" as gibberish. Of course it is. I see it that way too. It is a guesswork, it is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle.
Trial and error, trial and error, ... . It is an addiction.
= = =
Quiz Show (1994), directed and produced by Robert Redford
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiz_Show_(film)
"Producers Dan Enright and Albert Freedman are surprised when Columbia University instructor Charles Van Doren, son of a prominent literary family, visits their office to audition. Realizing that they have found an ideal challenger for Stempel, they offer to ask the same questions during the show which Van Doren correctly answered during his audition. He refuses, but when he comes within reach of a game-winning 21 points on the show, he is asked one of the questions from his audition. After a moment of moral indecision, he gives the correct answer. Stempel deliberately misses an easy question and loses, having been promised a future in television if he does so." (Wikipedia)
One of my favorite films ever.
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
How do you know his audience is romantic about everything? I think as an undergraduate I was aware that practical science is messy and far from ideal. We did practical work 2-3 afternoons every week, after all. I think the physicists did the same, according to what I recall from my girlfriend at the time, who was one.
I'm afraid I have no clue as to what you mean by the reference to your "of-with" thread. I read the OP and decided it was nothing to do with physical science and of no interest to me personally. Though on re-reading it, I note it seems to have evolved into incomprehensible strings of words that other readers have written off as gibberish.
Last edited:
O. W. Grant
Registered Senior Member
I am sorry, exchemist. My mistake. I couldn't know.
It was me who was romantic 35 years ago in "that" auditorium. With me it wasn't physics.
This is not the reason it is gibberish. It may not be gibberish if you explain what it is you are trying to do. You start out the thread with no explanation of what the point is you are trying to make. You assume everyone knows what you are thinking. Same thing with this thread you present a video and that's it; we have to guess what the point is. Then when we ask what the point is you say "I'm taking a stand" and we say about what?? Why you assume we can read read your mind I don't know.
I still have no idea what you were talking about in the 0f-with post. It isn't that I disagree with you, I don't know what you were talking about. You say "it is guess work". My question is what is guess work. You say "it is like a jigsaw puzzle". What is like a jigsaw puzzle.
What is the thing that leads to this trial and error??
For the love of all that is holy, WTF is the IT that is addicting. What is this IT you are talking about.
In other words, you don't have a clue?
Consider—
—that in addition to your reference point in that thread having to do with Natural Language Processing, nothing you have written in either that or this thread is in any way distinct from what an AI could produce.
• • •
Different it than the last one. In this case, "trial and error", i.e., speculation.
See, the other it, the one that leads to trial and error, is "guesswork" and "gibberish".
Something is getting lost in translation, but the thing is that neither are his posts intended to make sense. In its way, our neighbor's presentation can be said to be indistinguishable from bot chatter.
And while it feels like a lot of that goes on all around me, these days, no, it's not actually bots that I worry about.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
So why do you encourage him? When I saw the "Of-when" thread I thought "Ok, here we go again..." and yet you "debated" with him for page after page.
I was just waiting for the crazy "theory" to finally be revealed or in this case some obscure reference to "Professor Kenneth Young".
It almost reminds me of that (banned) guy from Canada who started out chatty and somewhat normal until the big reveal and then everything was about God, his pet "theory" and something about the Bank of Canada.
The "of-when" gibberish was this guy's first post and yet you took the bait and now you say that you knew it was gibberish? It didn't seem that way.
O. W. Grant
Registered Senior Member
Hi, origin,
You are right. I owe you and the rest an explanation.
1. "of - with" is a cover for "simple sentence. 0-d space".
/I did not want to attract attention with "0-d space". This is the name of the original text./
2. The text in question and the thread are about Consciousness - how it works.
Consciousness of animals (humans, cats, dogs, ...) and Conscious Machine which is being built works in the same way.
/the thread is not about realisation/
3. The method of work is focusing on language (as a dress of thought). I started with a particular Dependency grammar (I don't like Constituency grammar).
Everything is Connections and Things. (it does not matter how they are or will be realised)
By trial and error, step by step, by intuition and guessing I compiled:
Equivalence, Set, Connection_over_1, Genitive connections: Definition (is") and Embedding (has"), non-Genitive connection (is").
Thing and those connections are 0-d space. Every connection is Thing. That came from studying Instrumental case.
Every space is Equivalent to some rules (although I cannot make that rigorously ).
Changes, exchanges, transactions, actions, processes, ... are mentioned in the original text but I had no clue what are they and how to deal with them.
Eat/Live - Feed/Work came a year ago. But it was a few days ago and you are my witnesses how I manage to separate Static from Dynamic.
/Eat/Live - Feed/Work - Genitive; Eric Berne - transactions/exchange (communication) - non_Genitive_is"
I don't think. Tiles (look below) come to me. Then I try to find their place (trial and error).
About the Puzzle:
Let's say there is a puzzle. One does not know what is the picture and what form takes the puzzle as finished.
For simplicity, let puzzle's parts be square tiles. And a tile could be made of smaller square tiles.
Two things have to be said about that puzzle:
1. the tiles of the puzzle are scattered around among other things which are square tiles but are not parts of the puzzle;
2. every tile when observed has the same size.
AI is/are subconscious processes. They have yet to build what I mentioned above.
The unit of Reality/CONSCIOUSNESS is Event (aka thought). And Event has structure. Without that structure there's nothing.
Transactions/exchanges, changes, processes... Those are new for me. I do not know how they fit in the puzzle.
All this is messy, incoherent, even self contradicting as said Prof. Kenneth Young.
If conscious machine will be made, that will be part of the blueprint.
I do not want to do this any more. There are messed up things, there are missing things. I did what I could.
I do not want to violate the rules of that forum. If thread have to be removed - let it be removed.
There will not be any hard feelings on my part.
Last edited: