Azamat wrote: (01)
[AA] Wacek don't be so naughty and evil-minded. With Aristotle you had
really been ridiculously anserine. (02)
To prove that I am indeed naughty, I could say that I am more naughty
than you are Aristotle. But I do not think that appealing, rightly or
wrongly, to one's personality is the best way to answer a question not
related to it. (03)
[AA] To be good, bring all of them (reviews). (04)
I picked the one that was judged helpful by most visitors, and which also
took my attention beacuse it corresponds to what I think about many of
your statements and claims made on this list. (05)
To recover from my sins, however, here are some other, *positive*
excerpts: (06)
"Abdoullaev's comprehensive and exact ontology may well serve as the
fundamental knowledge framework for artificial systems with general
intelligence, and it looks much superior in conceptual principle and
practical application of extant immature and idisyncratic ontologies now
hastely constructed for multifarious Web-based intelligent systems
projects." (07)
"the book is sure to become the number one intellectual event although it
was not published by a prestigious publisher like the MIT Press
preferring to feed us with cut and dried academic materials" (08)
"Artificial Superintelligence is a mind-changing book with radically new
ideas about nature, mind and language. The chapter on natural processes
taking my professional interest proves to be the most adequate model of
the natural world for machines with superhuman brainpower." (09)
"Reading this striking, fascinating and bold study, you do believe that
superbrainy, supersmart machines now having solid theoretical foundation
are soon likely to be constructed." (010)
I hope you are now satisfied with these. (011)
[AA] It looks there more nutters and
crackpots among the readers than the authors. (012)
Look who's naughty, eh? I do not find your rude comments about your
readers giving you a positive credit. (013)
[AA] And i don't advise you writing a book, you are gonna to be deep-fried by
all sorts of oddballs,
whose worlds are shattered by your ideas. (014)
Looks like you react that way. (015)
[AA] But the topic raised is outside of current discussion. (016)
Well, if your books are advertized as sources of reference, I got curious
about why a reader writes such things, and thought you'd be willing to
discuss. Sorry for the misjudgment. (017)
vQ (018)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (019)
|