Author: Jens Kahlenberg
Date: 06:55:29 07/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 05, 2003 at 05:29:32, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On July 05, 2003 at 00:47:25, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>Once again I'm extremely surprised by how much you insist in digging into my >>personal background, and by what you want to do with it. > > >And I am extremely surprised that you cannot follow me when I say that I am >neither an expert for neural networks nor computerchess, but that I could STILL >participate in an interdisciplinary debate, because of my rudimentary knowledge >in chess and psychology. You simply dont get it that this is NOT - from my view >- about details of neural networks nor computerchess. Since I want that you can >understand I'll give you an almost terroristic example for what I am doing here. >Now keep yourself comfortable, Christophe! > >You have a cat. You like your cat although she doesn't always do what you want. >And like your cat I am HERE in the debates like your cat. I am here responsible >for the good feelings! I am your cat in this debate. Know what I mean? Would you >tell your cat to read 15 articles about cat psychology if she wanted to make you >happy? Why do you want me to do such nonsense? My knowledge is way too big for >the little debate here and therefore I could discover that nobody addressed Tom >Kerrigan anymore. I did it almost in my sleep, Christophe. Eyes wide OPEN! :) > > > > >> >>You have used 3 wrong facts and armed with this wrong sparse information allow >>yourself to talk about my "psychological manouevering" and that I presented a >>"totally twisted history". > > >Objection. I still stand to every statement I made. Or do you believe I invented >all that? > > >> >>One thing is now clear: you are as much an expert in neural networks as you are >>in psychology. >> >>As for science, I don't think a real scientist would write anything without at >>least checking his sources. Or try to conclude anything from three insignificant >>bits of information (and unfortunately they were not even true). > > >I can only repeat that I read the first two items. That with your father's >university and your short appearance in specific studies. How could I invent >such informational things? If they are not true, then why I read them in your >presentation? But ok I forget them if you say something to their existence. We >are here in a virtual reality and perhaps you wrote it with tongue in cheek - >how can I know? That I read it in your presentation, that is a fact. > > >> >>I could explain you why your previous posts showed an almost absolute ignorance >>about neural networks, but for that I would have to explain how they work. > > >Yes, that is funny. You read three reports in the net and claim expertdom in >neural networks so that you can well tell me that I know nothing about neural >networks. But in truth I never claimed that I knew something but claimed that I >could STILL participate in the debate because I discovered that the following >participants did no longer address Kerrigan. Is that too difficult for you to >understand? Tell me why and perhaps I can help you. > >I asked you to give me the evidence where I talked about neural networks AT ALL, >Christophe! You simply do not respond. Why? Because it would prove that you >again produced hot air when telling the group that I didn't know something about >neural networks - when in fact I did NEVER talk about this specific field? > >Let me give you a simple example that you must be able to understand. You >behaved as if I, who in reality had talked about Africa, did know nothing about >South America and you repeat it loud: Rolf, you simply have no idea about South >America, you should read more about it, wait, here I'll give you some links...! > >Why is all that important, Christophe, when it was about Africa? > >[Now do the following: Set neural networks for South America and the psychology >of debates for Africa.] > > >I give you just another advice for free. Try to debate here right on the spot, >say something directly after the item you want to criticise. Stop it to give a >rather confusing whole paragraphe at the end of the posting because you hide the >points you forgot to mention or which showed your incompetence in the debate. >Smart people will still discover it, Christophe. > > > >> >>I think it will be much better for you to just read a few articles about the >>basics of artificial neural networks. By doing so the evidence will pop up in >>your mind like ad windows do in Internet Explorer. >> >>I promiss you won't need to read a lot. Just the basics. >> >>I'm sorry. > >Ok, I accept your apology. > > > > >>As I said before I think you cannot avoid the trouble of informing >>yourself a little bit about the topic you were so brilliantly discussing two or >>three days ago. > >Again, you repeat yourself and you are again totally wrong! I didn't discuss >neural networks but I came into the debate from an interdisciplinary point of >view. I talked about chess and the debate itself. I did NOT talk about neural >networks nor even computerchess programming. So what did make you angry so much? >That the Subject line contained the term "neural networks"? Yes? But this is >just another tradition in virtual reality. This is the tradition to build up a >thread. Often people begin to talk about football and they use the same Subject >as before, the war against Iraq! Perhaps they try to take the mods for a ride, I >don't know. >:) > > >> >>Unless you are more interested in my irrelevant personal background than in >>neural networks... But that would be a real loss for neural networks, >>mathematics, computer chess, philosophy and psychology at large. > >You forgot astronomy, the universe and God! Uhm, sorry, Christophe, this is CCC >and NOT CTF, excuse me! Here I must concentrate myself on specific topics! But I >must admit that it is not so easy to follow me in my three-dimensional space of >interdisciplinary debate. A certain mature-ship is absolutely required, mere >bean couters have nothing to lose in the area. Too much freedom of thought would >cause crises in their perception. > >You should let your cat read my messages before you make premature conclusions. >She might understand me. I just had a little dialogue with her... > >I recommand that we could take the debate to CTF. There is more room for private >lectures. > >Rolf > >;) "A philosopher," stated the theologian, "Is like a blind man in a darkened room searching for a black cat that isn't there." "That is true," replied the philosopher, "But if he were a theologian, He'd find it." ~unknown Regards, Jens
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.