Merged Cognitive Theory, ongoing progress

[Pixel42]

Once the theory is published there won't be any discussion here.

Why on earth not?

New theories and discoveries are discussed here all the time.

 

[theprestige]

If you were genuine in your response you could have asked me if the theory had any predictions where experiments have already been done.

That's exactly what I asked. And you rejected it.

 

[casebro]

I've got a cognitive theory of my own. It's that there is a simulation that posts on the net. Said sim is only about 80%, the lacking 20% gives it Asperger's. At 40% it had Autism.

There is a competition going on. Last Sim went by the name Prof. Sukor Lugar or some such. One made up name is as good as another to an Aspy.

I'm going to publish my theory some day. Maybe after I have brain surgery. Or minimum, shock treatments.

But I've said enough, you can go look up my theory on the net.

 

[Pixel42]

If had spent four years working on a theory like that I would be much more disappointed than you. In fact, I don't see how I could do that unless I was mentally unbalanced.

It's a reference to a Monty Python sketch:

 

[barehl]

Because he's already started describing himself as an unappreciated genius for it.

I've been treated differently since I was six years old. I was treated differently all through grade school, high school, and even in college. I've gotten this from family, friends, co-workers, employers, acquaintances, and mental health professionals. This has gone on for a number of decades. So, how many possibilities are there?

1.) We have a case of mass delusion where people who come into contact with me mistakenly think I'm smart when I'm actually not. Since this involves people who have never met it would have to include some kind of telepathy.
2.) At the age of six I learned to fool people into thinking I was smart. And apparently got good enough at it to fool people who actually were smart and knowledgeable.
3.) The conclusions by others about me have been consistent because they were based on observations.

I'm not sure what you meant about appreciation. As far as I'm aware I haven't done anything to be appreciated for.

Specifically, comparing himself favorably to Elon Musk in the latest Mars thread.

Okay, this claim made me laugh. Musk is an entrepreneur who has made millions. I'm not a millionaire nor even a businessman. I can assure you that I've never started an online business or started an electric car company or started a rocket company. The only real overlap I have with Musk is in disagreeing with his ideas about self-driving cars and his somewhat outlandish ideas about general machine intelligence. To put this simply, Musk doesn't know what he's talking about on these topics.

But you can't be a martyr until you get martyred, so this is his three days in the underworld.

I seek to be a martyr? In what way? Also, wouldn't being a martyr be a lot easier than spending years doing research?

I think performing those experiments will be required to determine their ethicality. Otherwise how could you argue that the brain you've simulated is accurate enough to deserve an ethical standing?

If someone manages to accurately simulate a brain then that would completely refute my theory. Cross your fingers.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Okay, we're back to that again; it's a waste of time. Once the theory is published there won't be any discussion here. So, by saying that you want to wait until it is published you are actually saying that you don't want to ever discuss it. Why not be honest and just say that instead?

Why the hell not? Are you saying that once it is published, it'll become undisputed scientific consensus so quickly that it won't even be discussed on an internet forum like this one, where even the theories of evolution and of gravity are frequently called into question?

You won't tell us about your theory, you won't tell us about your evidence, you won't talk about your method...
What exactly are you expecting us to discuss?

 

[barehl]

When asked what your theory entails, you said you couldn't give any details the large volume of information needed to describe the theory in detail until you had published it.

Now it's correct.

but if you don't really want to talk about your theory, then why start these threads? Attention? Looking for some persecution so you get to play Galileo? Attention?

I already explained that.

Let's get something straight. I don't appreciate the bait and switch terminology. You and others imply one thing which might be quite reasonable and then change the definition to something that isn't.

If you honestly think I'm being salty then give some straight answers to these questions:

1. Why would I post details of an unfinished theory on an open forum? No one here has been able to explain why this would be reasonable.

2. Even if I had the theory completed and was willing to type, say, 500 pages of text into the this forum what proof would there be that it was correct? So, based on rationalizations people here have given it still wouldn't be discussed even if the volume wasn't prohibitive.

3. To get past the volume issue it would need to be published and publicly available. At that point it either be proved or disproved by experiments. So, I wouldn't be discussing it here.

I guess the thing I really can't get through my head though is why someone openly insults me without even trying to be subtle and then accuses me of being insulting. If you just feel like insulting me for whatever reason you've come up with then just be honest about it.

 

[Mojo]

Okay, we're back to that again; it's a waste of time. Once the theory is published there won't be any discussion here. So, by saying that you want to wait until it is published you are actually saying that you don't want to ever discuss it. Why not be honest and just say that instead?

How do you expect anyone to discuss your theory while you refuse to tell them what it is? As long as you refuse to provide information about your theory, you are preventing any discussion of it. Why not be honest and just say that you don't want to discuss it?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It does seem odd to post a thread just to tell people that you're not going to discuss the subject of the thread.

 

[JesseCuster]

I'm totally scoobied as to what barehl wants to actually discuss in this thread.

 

[jrhowell]

1. Why would I post details of an unfinished theory on an open forum? No one here has been able to explain why this would be reasonable.

You started this thread to discuss your theory! If you don't want to provide details how about an overview?

Are you willing to post anything about it at all?

2. Even if I had the theory completed and was willing to type, say, 500 pages of text into the this forum what proof would there be that it was correct? So, based on rationalizations people here have given it still wouldn't be discussed even if the volume wasn't prohibitive.

So it will take hundreds of pages to explain your theory. Do you plan on publishing a book?

Posting it to a website?

Having it published in a prestigious journal?

3. To get past the volume issue it would need to be published and publicly available. At that point it either be proved or disproved by experiments. So, I wouldn't be discussing it here.

How do you see experimental confirmation coming about?

Do you plan to do your own research or to fund research being done by others?

Do you expect others to be so taken by your theory that they take it upon themselves to perform these experiments?


(So far I see no reason for this thread to be in Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology. The only mention of science so far was in the first post where it was called out as being different from the undisclosed theory that is the topic of this thread.)

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Let's get something straight. I don't appreciate the bait and switch terminology. You and others imply one thing which might be quite reasonable and then change the definition to something that isn't.

If you honestly think I'm being salty then give some straight answers to these questions:

1. Why would I post details of an unfinished theory on an open forum? No one here has been able to explain why this would be reasonable.

2. Even if I had the theory completed and was willing to type, say, 500 pages of text into the this forum what proof would there be that it was correct? So, based on rationalizations people here have given it still wouldn't be discussed even if the volume wasn't prohibitive.

3. To get past the volume issue it would need to be published and publicly available. At that point it either be proved or disproved by experiments. So, I wouldn't be discussing it here.

I guess the thing I really can't get through my head though is why someone openly insults me without even trying to be subtle and then accuses me of being insulting. If you just feel like insulting me for whatever reason you've come up with then just be honest about it.

No, because you haven't answered mine.
What do you want to discuss in this thread, if not your theory?

 

[Pixel42]

I'm totally scoobied as to what barehl wants to actually discuss in this thread.

It's very strange. He seems to be complaining that we're not discussing his theory, whilst refusing to tell us anything about it to discuss. The insistence that once it's published there will be nothing to discuss is even stranger. If it's borne out by experiment there will almost certainly be lots of implications to discuss, and even if it's disproved it might well provide insights and new possibilities to explore.

It's all very odd.

 

[Mojo]

It's very strange. He seems to be complaining that we're not discussing his theory, whilst refusing to tell us anything about it to discuss. The insistence that once it's published there will be nothing to discuss is even stranger. If it's borne out by experiment there will almost certainly be lots of implications to discuss, and even if it's disproved it might well provide insights and new possibilities to explore.

It's all very odd.

It's not just that: he also claims to have developed "knowledge theory", and used it to develop his other theory. So that's two theories, one of which is complete enough for him to use to develop the other.

 

[Reality Check]

Once the theory is published there won't be any discussion here.

This is the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of the forum. If you publish any science, mathematics, medicine or technology then we will be willing to discuss it here.

The issue is that you cannot or will not give any actual progress report on your theory. That would start with an understandable description of the theory. So far all we have is a vague "something to do with evolution" and off-topic posts.

How about a link to where "People also seemed very confused about what I was working on" that should have contained an understandable description that people got confused about?

 

[casebro]

If had spent four years working on a theory like that I would be much more disappointed than you. In fact, I don't see how I could do that unless I was mentally unbalanced.

hmmmm.

 

[ShamelessGit]

It sounds like you're working on something cool, but honestly, even if you wanted to give most of the details, I bet most of us here would not understand it.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

It sounds like you're working on something cool, but honestly, even if you wanted to give most of the details, I bet most of us here would not understand it.

This isn't a Youtube comments section. There are mathematicians and neurobiologists here. I'm confident we'll be able to collectively grok whatever barehl presents. Which may explain his reluctance.

 

[Cheetah]

How about throwing us some small titbits?
As an example, relativity can be discussed, starting off from the simple premise that the speed of light is constant for all observers. Lots of concepts and implications relating to time, space, length etc. can be discussed starting off with just that. No need to get into any maths or the stuff Einstein actually published.
Don't you have concepts/conclusions that can be discussed without getting into all the nitty gritty difficult details that take years to prove and sort out?
What you have posted so far seems very interesting and you seem very sure about some things that don't necessarily seem so clear cut to me. I would like to know more.

 

[barehl]

How do you expect anyone to discuss your theory while you refuse to tell them what it is?

Please stop shifting the definitions. Do you actually believe that I expect someone here to discuss minute details about a topic when those minute details are not available? That isn't a rational suggestion and it doesn't relate to anything I've posted on this forum. Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of argumentum absurdum?

As long as you refuse to provide information about your theory, you are preventing any discussion of it.

Again, that sliding definition. Please stop pretending that any mention of ideas is the same as providing detailed arguments and evidence.

I know that there is a bridge in San Francisco called The Golden Gate Bridge. I know that it has been there for many decades. I don't know who designed it or how many workers it took to build or how long it took to build. I don't know how many tons of steel it used or how many miles of cable. I don't know its exact length, height, width or cost. But, according to you I can't say anything about that bridge unless I include all of the engineering, social, political, and economic information in fine detail. That isn't how people talk and you (and others here) know it. Why are you so dishonest when it comes to me?

Why not be honest and just say that you don't want to discuss it?

I will not discuss important details of my theory until it is completed and set for publication which is the same standard that every practicing scientist in the country uses today. You already know this.