Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Interdisciplinary Debate about a black cat

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 0.01 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.