On 5/21/2021 11:20 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 21/05/2021 07:11, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 5/20/2021 5:10 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 20/05/2021 13:00, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>> On 20/05/2021 05:56, Jeff Barnett wrote:> [...] I assure you that
>>>>> trying to say the same thing to him for the 579th time will have the
>>>>> same effect as the first 578 tries. Saying something new wont do much
>>>>> either.
>>>>> PS this message is for all of us klutzes who have tried to improve
>>>>> Pete. To tailor this message to your self, substitute your personal
>>>>> version of 579 in the above paragraph.
>>>>
>>>>      Personally, I've tried very hard, and only occasionally failed,
>>>> to say things to Pete only once.  It's a personal opinion, but I think
>>>> this group would be much improved if "us klutzes" limited ourselves to
>>>> one response each to Pete per day.  Ironically, such self-denial would
>>>> probably even enable better progress to be made, as Pete would have
>>>> some 40 fewer articles to "write" each day, and could use the extra 20
>>>> minutes per day to improve his programs/experience/style/....
>>>>
>>>
>>> For me, the problem isn't so much the number of replies, it's more
>>> with the repetition of the same arguments over and over.
>>>
>>> PO will post something or other, and since November(ish) last year
>>> pretty much NOTHING he has posted has added anything!  Someone thinks
>>> "PO has said something wrong - I must correct it to protect the
>>> innocence of virgin newsgroup readers who could be corrupted.  Yes,
>>> I've said this before MANY times, but now I've no choice but to say
>>> it all again.  The innocent MUST be protected!"  [*]
>>>
>>> The problem with this is that if they do point out mistakes, PO WILL
>>> just respond with MORE WORDS - probably just some repetition of
>>> previous claims (sometimes not even related to OP).  And his reposted
>>> claims of course will repeat previous errors, so they will still feel
>>> obliged to post again.  ...And the cycle continues guaranteeing every
>>> PO thread will be a (potentially) infinite thread, with essentially
>>> zero content.
>>>
>>> I've wondered /why/ arguing with PO always goes like this?  Why
>>> doesn't PO see his mistakes, or see the simple correctness of other
>>> peoples reasoning?  I believe PO has some deficiency which renders
>>> him INCAPABLE of pretty much any form of higher ABSTRACT REASONING!
>>> This sounds rather nasty, like I'm just insulting him, but I'm not
>>> interested in that.  If PO /really/ can't handle "abstract reasoning"
>>> that would be an awful life handicap, right?  Such a person would:
>>>
>>> a)  be incapable of (correctly) understanding the concepts underlying
>>>      most academic fields like CS, logic, mathematics, AI, and so on.
>>> b)  be incapable of following other people's reasoned arguments,
>>>      because those arguments have a starting point he lacks (concepts,
>>>      definitions, notations used) and proceed by /logical steps/
>>>      where correctness of conclusion genuinely follows from the
>>>      correctness of starting points.  Forget it - all waaaay too
>>>      abstract!
>>> c)  similarly be incapable of presenting their own /reasoned/
>>>      arguments [aka proofs].  Probably they just wouldn't understand
>>>      why academics write day-to-day proofs, or what one needed to look
>>>      like.  Perhaps they would genuinely see no difference between
>>>      their own repeated claims and other people's properly reasoned
>>>      arguments?
>>>
>>> So... such a person's claims aren't going to based on /reasoning/.
>>> They will effectively be child-like /intuitions/ - first thoughts on
>>> a subject which they /believe/ should be true.  We all grow up with
>>> those, but then we go to school and learn abstract stuff which
>>> enables us to see the problems with our naive intuitions and we
>>> /learn/ new (better) stuff and make progress.  A person unable to
>>> engage with abstract ideas would be more or less stuck with those
>>> starting intuitions for life! And their arguments and proofs could
>>> only consist of statements and restatements of those intuitions,
>>> although for them that would probably be indistinguishable from what
>>> they see others doing when they "prove" stuff...
>>>
>>> Well, to my mind, everything above describes PO, harsh though that
>>> sounds.  "Arguing" with PO endlessly is (IMO) pointless, not only
>>> because it's all been said before many times and becomes time
>>> consuming and boring, but also because:
>>>
>>> -  He won't be able to follow any logical reasoning you present!  He
>>>     won't even understand the starting points.  It's all just
>>>     too abstract.
>>>
>>> -  His position is not based on /reasoning/, so will not be
>>>     changed by careful abstract reasoning, however thoroughly
>>>     people believe they are presenting those ideas.  The more
>>>     time spent on carefully arguing some subtle point and explaining
>>>     basic concepts underlying the ideas, the more likely PO will just
>>>     blank the whole thing.  (We've all seen that personally many
>>>     times, right?  Time thrown out the window!)
>>>
>>> -  PEOPLE HERE ALREADY UNDERSTANDS PO'S MISTAKES 'SUFFICIENTLY'.
>>>     I mean, sufficiently to understand why he has not proved his
>>>     claims (and never will), and sufficiently to satisfy natural
>>>     curiosity over where after all these years the
>>>     basic error will occur; the HP proof is after all not
>>>     complicated, and to start with everyone wants to know where
>>>     on earth PO has become confused!  I'd say those places became
>>>     clear by last Christmas, and nothing
>>>     significant has happened since!  :)
>>>
>>>
>>> CONCLUSION: I'm all behind your (Andy/Jeff's) suggestions, but I'd go
>>> further to suggest NEVER REPEATING THE SAME ARGUMENTS TO PO MORE THAN
>>> [A COUPLE] OF TIMES.  (Well, everyone will have their own threshold
>>> for that!  But 379 is too high.)
>>>
>>> But what to do when PO just repeats back previous claims with the
>>> same repeated errors, AS HE UNDOUBTABLY WILL?  This is tricky for
>>> someone believing it's their moral duty to protect the internet from
>>> untruth! :)  My suggestion would be to either
>>>
>>> a)  Ignore him.  [I suspect he will be more determined than you to
>>>      not be seen to be "defeated" by not replying - but that's an
>>>      illusion in the end - posting last doesn't mean you've "won",
>>>      anything, does it?]
>>>
>>> b)  I've tried replying, but with just a general notice rather than
>>>      repeating details of all PO errors - something like "Now you
>>>      are just repeating previous claims without actually addressing
>>>      any or my points.  Problems with those claims have been pointed
>>>      out many times by posters here - check the previous
>>>      posts if you're interested."
>>>
>>>      The point is this does not give a natural target for PO follow
>>>      up, and the subthread dies out.  Even if PO tries
>>>      his usual trick and responds with a generic repost of claims,
>>>      this way it lacks the illusion he aims for, namely that he's
>>>      engaged in an actual academic debate and is "dealing" with
>>>      all objections raised, so he must be right!  It comes across
>>>      more clearly as PO rehashing old stuff that has already been
>>>      dealt with, if PO could only understand that.
>>>
>>> I did actually try (b) for a while, and it worked in the local
>>> subthread, but it made little difference globally because it only
>>> takes one or two people to be in "always point out exactly what's
>>> wrong in the previous PO post" mode to send the thread into the PO
>>> potentially-infinite-thread pattern.
>>>
>>> [*]  Hey, eveyone can tell I don't hold with the "got to protect
>>> innocent Usenet virgins from untruths told on comp.theory" idea,
>>> right? I mean, who tells their children "go on the internet and hunt
>>> around in the unmoderated Usenet technical groups - for sure
>>> everything said there is true, you can stake your pensions on that!"
>>> ?   :)
>> Interesting and seemingly an accurate assessments of our favorite
>> troll. I note that since I posted my whimsy a few hours ago, he has
>> started seven new threads without an ounce of new content and on
>> second thought, without any real content at all. Given our
>> observations of his need to be in the middle of excitement, perhaps as
>> a cover for absolutely no social life or human contact, he's stirring
>> the pot again and again with the usual nonsense big time.
>>
>> I think he is like the commercial fisherman who wants increased
>> chances for bites so he throws multiple hooks in the water. He's
>> mutated from a hobby troll to a business class troll making me believe
>> that his social and mental states have simultaneously went kaput. I
>> think it would be interesting if the inmates here could resist the
>> urge, overpowering as it may be, to feed him so we can observe the
>> burst of schizoid activity and see where it takes him. All of this in
>> the interest of science of course.
>
> I don't think PO is a troll in the way that is usually taken - he's not
> simply stirring up trouble.  I'm sure he genuinely believes he's an
> unacknowledged genius, and that his claims have merit and would be
> accepted if only he could improve his wording a little!  You're probably
> right though, that PO has no other social contact and needs the
> interaction of these newsgroups.
>
> I think he knows he will never be given the job he's wanted with Cyc,
> which was (he's said) his initial motivation for posting here.  (Get his
> reputation points up, so Doug Lenat will admit his mistake and finally
> offer him that job.)  But he carries on posting here anyway, because
> that's all that's left him.
>
>
> Mike.
>