Hammering out cognitive theory

[Reality Check]

Yes, the fuzziness of terms ....

makes your question moot until you remove the fuzziness by telling us the definitions that you are using.

 

[barehl]

Apologies.. I was wondering....
If it is 'Artificial' then can it be 'Intelligence'?

I don't use that term. I think AI is a pretty good area that has made progress in what it does. According to the belief that some ascribe to you could keep going and eventually reach General AI. However, there is no supporting theory for this. The term I prefer at the moment is General Cognitive System, but it will take some doing to see if this is truly different from General AI.

 

[barehl]

What I've been saying, and I'll reiterate here, is that if you want to discuss an idea, discuss the idea. What you don't do is say "I have an idea," and then only talk about tangential aspects and conclusions of the idea without ever detailing what the idea is.

Okay, I'll wait until I publish the ideas and they are accepted. Tell me again how that would result in discussion here.

Other people who do this sort of thing are usually cranks, so it's a bit of a warning sign.

If you can't tell the difference between what I do and a crank then the word 'skeptic' needs to be removed from the forum.

"They'll steal my idea" is another warning sign. It does happen from time to time, but nowhere near as often as it's invoked. If you want to ensure you get credit for your ideas, you should be telling its details to as many people as possible so everyone knows it's yours when they see it elsewhere.

The critters website is set up for critiquing fiction that people write. The manuscripts themselves are not public. The only way you can view the manuscripts is to be a member of the board. It would be quite foolish in that context to steal someone's story because there would not only be a record that you were a member of the board but also that you accessed that particular document. So, you are claiming that this type of security is necessary for fiction but not for serious work?

Let's look at someone who according to you is an obvious crank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem#Wiles.27s_general_proof

Wiles worked on that task for six years in near-total secrecy, covering up his efforts by releasing prior work in small segments as separate papers and confiding only in his wife.

Okay, here's one: go back to your last thread and read every single sentence W.D. Clinger said to you. Judging from the quality of his replies he's forgotten more than you currently know.

You seem to keep getting things backwards. If a general theory existed for cognition then I'm sure Clinger would be aware of it. But, if that were the case then I wouldn't be working on it. No one, not even Clinger can forget something that has never existed.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

All right, let's say that the claims are exorbitant. So, let's run through the possible motives that I could have:

1.) I am delusional.
2.) I'm attention seeking.
3.) It's a case of Dunning Kruger

4.) All of the above.

But, if that were the case then I wouldn't be working on it.

You are 'working' on it? What experiments have you done?

 

[John Freestone]

Okay, I'll wait until I publish the ideas and they are accepted. Tell me again how that would result in discussion here.

But you're not waiting until you've published, or even, from what you've said, finished working out if your ideas form a valid system. Publishing would result in the possibility of discussion of your ideas here, because you would have presented them in some form, which you won't do now for fear of having them stolen (you say - I suspect that it's for fear of having them dismantled and the dream dying).

The fact that you don't understand this, or pretend not to, raises suspicions of the crank/Dunning-Kruger/troll kind.

The fact that you detail the schizophrenia and D-K possibilities and then reject them based on your own personal judgement of your capabilities shows you don't know what you're talking about. Schizophrenics can do great car repairs and save money! The Dunning-Kruger effect means that people who are relatively incompetent in an area imagine they are highly competent in it!

And this is the third thread I've seen where you've had this sort of feedback and you've ignored it. It's ironic you spend your time thinking about learning and reject every opportunity to practise it.

 

[barehl]

You seem to be restating the concept of K-strategy rather than formalizing cognition theory.

In what way?

Cognition is expensive, not cheap.

I was talking about how you got cognition. I see it as an adaptation from a different solution. This type of adaptation is not uncommon such as where the bones came from to make jaws in the first jawed fishes.

The theory was popular in the 1970s and 1980s, when it was used as a heuristic device, but lost importance in the early 1990s, when it was criticized by several empirical studies.

I could see that. Rats are smarter than mice but rats are still high reproduction. And, honey badgers are smarter than deer but they reproduce faster than deer. So, I don't know that smarter is related to reproduction rates. The only place I recall this being argued was related to ape reproduction since it is well known that humans reproduce faster than chimps, orangs, or gorillas. As I recall, one biologist tried to make the argument that walking upright reduced the K.

 

[barehl]

Publishing would result in the possibility of discussion of your ideas here

I'm still not understanding this. If I published my ideas and they were wrong then I certainly wouldn't be discussing them here. And, if they were right then why would I be discussing them here?

I've posted here for some time. If I were given to trolling then there should be mountains of evidence. But, you didn't link to any or quote any. Why?

I've found that when people are uncomfortable with something they complain. The complaints don't have to be logical or valid or even very well thought out; people just feel a need to make their discomfort known. So, my assumption would be that my ideas make you uncomfortable for some reason, whatever that might be.

You seem to think that I have some unmet need to be special. I've had a lifetime of specialness. I could use some work on being more social or less abrasive, but I've never had a shortage of specialness.

 

[John Freestone]

I'm still not understanding this. If I published my ideas and they were wrong then I certainly wouldn't be discussing them here. And, if they were right then why would I be discussing them here?

Well the rest of my sentence went some way to explaining its meaning, but probably wasn't clear. I am trying to get across what others have said much more clearly - you are NOT discussing your ideas ANYWAY. You may think you are, but you're not. You give big headlines like you can build a thinking machine, or you're in the process of formalizing knowledge or hammering out cognitive theory, but any time people ask for details or definitions, you waffle (e.g. igLearning / physLearning vs what children do, unspecified) and obfuscate (e.g. the reason you can't give a formal definition of the latter, because "knowledge theory" isn't defined here).

If you published your ideas, you would then have done what people are asking for a little of, fleshing out of your vague waffle into something that can be discussed meaningfully. It's up to you whether you discuss your theory after it's published, whether "right" or "wrong", but other human brains would have received enough for that to be possible, as I originally said. Right and wrong are also ends of a spectrum - you might have cracked something important and want to discuss it to do more (or bask in your specialness), or you might have got a lot wrong, and want to discuss if there's a better direction to go in.

I've posted here for some time. If I were given to trolling then there should be mountains of evidence. But, you didn't link to any or quote any. Why?

I'm a bit lazy. There's mountains of evidence.

I've found that when people are uncomfortable with something they complain. The complaints don't have to be logical or valid or even very well thought out; people just feel a need to make their discomfort known. So, my assumption would be that my ideas make you uncomfortable for some reason, whatever that might be.

No. Your ideas, as far as I've heard them (or understand them, since I admit there's a lot of this subject that I haven't a clue about, and you may be saying more than I realise - however, if others here who have been in the business for decades are also frustrated, I take it my intuition isn't far off...) are interesting to me in a general sense. I am currently reading a system architecture for building conscious machines, for example. Your discursive process annoys me. My emotion is frustration and annoyance and impatience, which is what I experience with trolls, obfuscators and time-wasters.

You seem to think that I have some unmet need to be special. I've had a lifetime of specialness. I could use some work on being more social or less abrasive, but I've never had a shortage of specialness.

That's great. I don't intend to diagnose your problem. I am reflecting how you come across and suggesting possible issues. You may, now that I know how special you've been, be feeling that that is slipping recently and so turned to this. I don't know. It's really up to you to figure out, but you won't even accept other people's genuine feedback and consider that it might mean something about you.

 

[annnnoid]

You seem to think that I have some unmet need to be special. I've had a lifetime of specialness. I could use some work on being more social or less abrasive, but I've never had a shortage of specialness.

…are you aware that this is a rather peculiar thing for someone to say? Are you meaning ‘unique’ (specifically or generally notably different [to some degree or other])…or ‘special’ (better than those around you [some or all] in a way that makes you superior [moderately or significantly]) by some metric that you deem relevant.

 

[RussDill]

There are additional problems like a loss of behavioral correspondence. And there are others. Homo Heidelbergensis seems about as far as you can go without running into an identity paradox. You'll note that of the three lineages: Neanderthal, Denisova, and Sapiens, only Sapiens got past this problem. And then you have the fact that humans are civine whereas Neanderthals were not. That also matches since civinity is typically detrimental. These are the types of issues that people gloss over when they start talking about singularity.

You've gone into an area here I'm completely unfamiliar with and google cannot help me with. In fact, the phrase, "loss of behavioral correspondence" only appears in a single place on the Internet, your post. But behavioral correspondence seems to mean that an individuals behavior corresponds to the environment he or she faces. I'm aware of a wide swath of animal, primate, and human behavior that both corresponds to the environment, and does not correspond to the environment.

I'm also not sure how you've come about information on identity paradox on Homo Heidelbergensis, Neanderthals, and Denisova. I have been able to find no research in this area.

Additionally, I cannot find the definition of the words civine, and civinity.

But then this entire paragraph seems directed at the singularity folks, so maybe I'm just not up on my singularity reading.

The facts kind of argue against this. For example, the brain project which seems to be following Kurzweil's erroneous back-of-the-envelope estimates.

You're arguing against something by citing a different erroneous argument. Interesting strategy. If cognition was not the cheapest path towards certain complex behaviors, why would natural selection utilize it?

The general problems that would concern building such a system have to do with data size, bandwidth issues, and information flow organization. You need 5 bits to match synaptic levels but this isn't evenly divisible, so you would round up to 8 bits. I'm pretty sure that you can get by with 32 bits of selection; but, if you did have to go higher, you would have to round up to 64 bits. Memory bandwidth using DDR4-2400 would require 50,000 channels. These are 8 bytes wide which doesn't really help for 8 bits but probably means that 64 bits for selection wouldn't be slower than 32. If you can do three instructions per clock cycle then the CPU logic should be able to keep up with one channel of memory. That's about 3 GB of memory so volume isn't a problem. However, the 32 bits is indirect which means you can't use burst transfer. So, with a CL of, say, 18 and two transfers per clock our bandwidth is 1/36th as fast. This increases our channel demand from 50,000 to 1.8 million. But, surely that is impossible since that would mean no increase in memory speed since DDR came out in 1996 (20 years ago). It would also imply that one memory channel could support no more than 100 MHz of processor speed. Such are the problems with trying to build a real system--and why none of the existing projects seems to have any hope of a solution. There are ways to get around these problems but not by throwing processor power at them--which is the naïve solution that everyone seems to be clinging to.

See, this to me is where you go completely off the rails. Even if you were correct, it would only be an issue of a few orders of magnitude. It does not matter what speed a research cognitive system runs at. It could take either 18 minutes, 18 hours, 18 days, or 18 months to produce meaningful results and it would not matter. You seem to be claiming a required memory bandwidth of 120TB/s. (50,000 * 8 bits * 2400MT/s). Care to explain where you are getting this number, or why you think cognition would suddenly not function if the bandwidth were only 500GB/s?

Additionally, the way you've described processing and retrieving data is purely linear. A single thread of execution processing one neuron at a time. Neural nets are a massively parallel problem. You only need to adjust the number of neurons simultaneously processed so that full memory bandwidth is always being utilized. Additionally, this type of problem is completely blown out of the water with GPUs. Individual consumer GPUs are coming online with memory bandwidths of 512GB/s. Not to mention the combined power of banks of GPUs.

 

[RussDill]

It depends on what you mean. The skill of moving your feet and legs to transport your body from place to place without falling over is in the cerebellum which is the _phys part. The concept of walking is in the cerebrum and this is not _phys.

What an interesting non-answer. Are you saying that baby animals need to understand the concept of walking as part of the learning process?

 

[barehl]

If you published your ideas, you would then have done what people are asking for

Could either you or Beelz simply answer the question instead of going off on an irrelevant tangent? This is not a vague question so if neither you nor Beelz can answer it then I have to assume that either you don't have an answer in which case there is little reason to value anything else you post, or you are deliberately avoiding the question in which case there is little reason to value anything else you post.

Your argument seems to work like this:
1.) I publish my ideas in detail.
2.)
3.) My ideas are discussed here.

I keep asking you to fill in the second step without resorting to magic but you don't seem to be able to do this. It's easy for you to attack me; it doesn't require any logic, common sense, or ethics on your part to do so. But that does nothing to advance your argument. I'm going to try this one more time. Just answer the question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem#Wiles.27s_general_proof

Wiles worked on that task for six years in near-total secrecy, covering up his efforts by releasing prior work in small segments as separate papers and confiding only in his wife.

So, Wile did not explain his ideas in detail.

However, by the summer of 1991, Iwasawa theory also seemed to not be reaching the central issues in the problem. In response, he approached colleagues to seek out any hints of cutting edge research and new techniques, and discovered an Euler system recently developed by Victor Kolyvagin and Matthias Flach that seemed "tailor made" for the inductive part of his proof.

Okay, at this point he has not published anything nor is he collaborating.

in January 1993 he asked his Princeton colleague, Nick Katz, to check his reasoning for subtle errors.

At this point he still has not published anything. This is seven years after he started.

By mid-May 1993, Wiles felt able to tell his wife he thought he had solved the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, and by June he felt sufficiently confident to present his results in three lectures delivered on 21–23 June 1993 at the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences.

This was not an open publication of his ideas. I remember this quite clearly because there was a request by other mathematicians for a general publication.

Wiles spent almost a year trying to repair his proof, initially by himself and then in collaboration with Richard Taylor, without success.

Again, at this point, he is still working in secret.

On 24 October 1994, Wiles submitted two manuscripts, "Modular elliptic curves and Fermat's Last Theorem" and "Ring theoretic properties of certain Hecke algebras", ... The two papers were vetted and published as the entirety of the May 1995 issue of the Annals of Mathematics

This was the very first open publication, nine years after he started. So, contrast and compare Wile with me. Explain why he was or was not schizophrenic, attention seeking, or suffering from Dunning Kruger. Explain why he was or wasn't wrong to keep his ideas secret. Explain either how your description of me would apply equally to Wile or why it would not. If you or Beelz can't do this then why would anything else you post in this thread have any value?

 

[barehl]

What an interesting non-answer. Are you saying that baby animals need to understand the concept of walking as part of the learning process?

I never said anything like that. Learning physical skills takes place in the cerebellum. It can be learned even if brain damage prevents forming new memories. The obvious conclusion to this is exactly the opposite of what you've just said. It is clear that physical skill does not require any type of cognitive ability. In other words, although a squirrel has far less cognitive ability than a human there does not seem to be much difference in terms of learning physical skills. I'm concerned with learning that takes place in the cerebrum.

 

[barehl]

You've gone into an area here I'm completely unfamiliar with and google cannot help me with. In fact, the phrase, "loss of behavioral correspondence" only appears in a single place on the Internet, your post. But behavioral correspondence seems to mean that an individuals behavior corresponds to the environment he or she faces.

An organism that is environmentally reactive has a specific reaction for each environmental stimulus. As you increase cognitive ability this is no longer the case.

I'm also not sure how you've come about information on identity paradox on Homo Heidelbergensis, Neanderthals, and Denisova. I have been able to find no research in this area.

Additionally, I cannot find the definition of the words civine, and civinity.

That doesn't surprise me. If you look at the Drake equation:

fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space

Any species that developed civilization would be civine. But a post hoc definition isn't useful because it wouldn't allow predictions. A better definition involves what is done with excess resources. Clearly only Sapiens developed civilization. I understand the identity paradox and why this would generally stop the development of cognition greater than Heidelbergensis or Neanderthal. What I've tried to figure out is if this is directly related to civinity or is just a coincidence. In other words, is it possible that Neanderthal had solved the identity paradox but was still not civine? Maybe I'm not stating this clearly. It's obvious that none of the other hominid species were civine. However, I don't have any direct way of knowing whether or not any of them was below or above the identity threshold. Clearly I couldn't know that since I've never directly observed one. And, if any of our ancestors made relevant observations about it, the records didn't survive.

You're arguing against something by citing a different erroneous argument. Interesting strategy. If cognition was not the cheapest path towards certain complex behaviors, why would natural selection utilize it?

This doesn't make any sense. Evolution didn't plan to make jawed fishes. The bones used later in the jaw were originally used for something else. Evolution could not plan to make cognition. I'm saying that cognition was an adaptation using what was available. I would agree that it was a cheaper path in terms of what was available. But you always have that question of whether there were other options. Obviously Sapiens have no other options but other species on other planets might and non-biological systems might.

Your argument about incremental progress only makes sense if you are claiming that cognition was inevitable. But, based on the other hominid species, that does not seem to be the case. And, a cheaper strategy would lead you to a local minimum but probably not a global minimum. So, you are either arguing that there is only one path (or that all paths converge) or you are counting on luck.

See, this to me is where you go completely off the rails. Even if you were correct, it would only be an issue of a few orders of magnitude. It does not matter what speed a research cognitive system runs at.

You've missed the point entirely. Name anyone else who has talked about how many memory channels would be needed. It's a short list: zero. Even Kurzweil didn't talk about that.

It could take either 18 minutes, 18 hours, 18 days, or 18 months to produce meaningful results and it would not matter. You seem to be claiming a required memory bandwidth of 120TB/s. (50,000 * 8 bits * 2400MT/s). Care to explain where you are getting this number, or why you think cognition would suddenly not function if the bandwidth were only 500GB/s?

You are talking about two different things. If you want a GCS to function like a human in this environment then you have to maintain the temporal boundaries at that level. You don't really have much choice. Then you start talking about simulating the environment, which of course, is a completely different environment and therefore different temporal boundaries. It is an interesting question about whether or not you could demonstrate a GCS using, say, one processor. What would take one second in the brain would then take perhaps twelve days. A years worth of running time would be about 32 seconds of brain time. Of course a rat is about 1%. Demonstrating 31 seconds of rat brain time would take about 3.7 days. Of course, then you have the environment, senses, and memory to simulate. That puts you up to 280 days. Five seconds of rat brain time would take a month and a half. Would that be worthwhile?

Additionally, the way you've described processing and retrieving data is purely linear. A single thread of execution processing one neuron at a time. Neural nets are a massively parallel problem. You only need to adjust the number of neurons simultaneously processed so that full memory bandwidth is always being utilized. Additionally, this type of problem is completely blown out of the water with GPUs. Individual consumer GPUs are coming online with memory bandwidths of 512GB/s. Not to mention the combined power of banks of GPUs.

Actually, no. I've already considered massively parallel systems. Red Storm dates back to 2005. The limitation of speed in these systems is LAN bandwidth. I've considered lightweight systems and novel architectures like Sony's Cell processor. I've also considered GPU systems. These all have limitations that would keep them well below the peak processing speed. I think that the problems can be solved but not by any of the architectures you've mentioned.

 

[John Freestone]

Could either you or Beelz simply answer the question instead of going off on an irrelevant tangent?

Which irrelevant tangent are you referring to?

This is not a vague question so if neither you nor Beelz can answer it then I have to assume that either you don't have an answer in which case there is little reason to value anything else you post, or you are deliberately avoiding the question in which case there is little reason to value anything else you post.

Your argument seems to work like this:
1.) I publish my ideas in detail.
2.)
3.) My ideas are discussed here.

I keep asking you to fill in the second step without resorting to magic but you don't seem to be able to do this.

My understanding of what I was replying to was like this:
1)You refuse to tell people what your ideas are, beyond bare headlines. (Ah, I'm on to you - that's what "barehl" stands for, isn't it?)
2) When challenged to expand a bit on the headlines, you says you won't because secrecy is required, IIRC, in case attribution isn't secured. This is understandable, but the result is,
3) Your ideas aren't discussed here.

So, my solution is, as I already said in prose,
1.) I publish my ideas in detail.
2.) People get to see them.
3.) My ideas are discussed here.

It's easy for you to attack me; it doesn't require any logic, common sense, or ethics on your part to do so. But that does nothing to advance your argument.

I am sorry you felt attacked. I suppose that's not a bad description. As I said, I find your discursive style very annoying.

Anyway, having "attacked" you, you brought up a list of possible motives you might have for appearing to discuss your ideas here whilst not really discussing them, and I simply gave feedback on them. Contrary to what you say above, these involved logic, indeed corrected yours by pointing out that you wouldn't necessarily be able to judge your own expression of the Dunning Kruger effect. I also corrected your view of the capabilities of schizophrenics, who can fix cars on the cheap just like you.

You may not have been able to ascertain the ethics involved in my "attack". Tough.

I sense that you're stuck trying to bridge two beliefs - that the brain is just matter and its activity is computable, and that consciousness is somehow special and not computable. This may be a wrong view, but it's all I have been able to wring out of the pages of Turing machines and Chomsky Hierarchies.

I'm not sure if you're genuinely trying to get help puzzling this out or not. I know the subject matter is way beyond me, but I'm pretty good at gleaning the gist of a conversation and I have a little background since I've been programming for the last 25 years and have an interest in cognition and biology. You seem hell bent on not being corrected on anything, even by people with Masters degrees who dissect your own logic and show it to be sorely wanting.

Strangest of all, despite apparently arguing that AI can't be conscious, you also seem to suggest that this is exactly what you've cracked, saying that you can build a "thinking" machine.

I'm going to try this one more time. Just answer the question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat..._general_proof

Wiles worked on that task for six years in near-total secrecy, covering up his efforts by releasing prior work in small segments as separate papers and confiding only in his wife.

So, Wile did not explain his ideas in detail.

However, by the summer of 1991, Iwasawa theory also seemed to not be reaching the central issues in the problem. In response, he approached colleagues to seek out any hints of cutting edge research and new techniques, and discovered an Euler system recently developed by Victor Kolyvagin and Matthias Flach that seemed "tailor made" for the inductive part of his proof.

Okay, at this point he has not published anything nor is he collaborating.

in January 1993 he asked his Princeton colleague, Nick Katz, to check his reasoning for subtle errors.

At this point he still has not published anything. This is seven years after he started.

By mid-May 1993, Wiles felt able to tell his wife he thought he had solved the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, and by June he felt sufficiently confident to present his results in three lectures delivered on 21–23 June 1993 at the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences.

This was not an open publication of his ideas. I remember this quite clearly because there was a request by other mathematicians for a general publication.

Wiles spent almost a year trying to repair his proof, initially by himself and then in collaboration with Richard Taylor, without success.

Again, at this point, he is still working in secret.

On 24 October 1994, Wiles submitted two manuscripts, "Modular elliptic curves and Fermat's Last Theorem" and "Ring theoretic properties of certain Hecke algebras", ... The two papers were vetted and published as the entirety of the May 1995 issue of the Annals of Mathematics

This was the very first open publication, nine years after he started. So, contrast and compare Wile with me. Explain why he was or was not schizophrenic, attention seeking, or suffering from Dunning Kruger. Explain why he was or wasn't wrong to keep his ideas secret. Explain either how your description of me would apply equally to Wile or why it would not. If you or Beelz can't do this then why would anything else you post in this thread have any value?

I don't know how he responded to others when he shared his ideas, how much "headline" and how much "detail" he gave, how much detail they asked him to give, nor what kinds of challenges they raised. If this is an unsatisfactory response, and you conclude from this that nothing else I post in this thread is of any value, that would be another example of your unreasonableness, wouldn't it, since I might have a good day tomorrow and surprise you with something you agree with.

I don't think there's anything wrong with working on something in secret, nor discussing it in reasonable enough detail and responding cogently to challenges. You're not doing either. You are, of course, covering a lot of ground. There isn't any lack of detail in the areas related to machine cognition that the threads cover. But it's like you drop some bit of theory into the conversation and then spend another page running around trying to avoid people telling you you don't understand it properly.

I'm referring mostly to this thread http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=294328 (which you didn't start)

Towards the end of this, last August, after great criticism of your views and not a little "attack", you said, "If it gets published then maybe we can have a productive conversation."

But you want the missing step from me months later.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Could either you or Beelz simply answer the question instead of going off on an irrelevant tangent? This is not a vague question so if neither you nor Beelz can answer it then I have to assume that either you don't have an answer in which case there is little reason to value anything else you post, or you are deliberately avoiding the question in which case there is little reason to value anything else you post.

Your argument seems to work like this:
1.) I publish my ideas in detail.
2.)
3.) My ideas are discussed here.

I keep asking you to fill in the second step without resorting to magic but you don't seem to be able to do this. It's easy for you to attack me; it doesn't require any logic, common sense, or ethics on your part to do so. But that does nothing to advance your argument. I'm going to try this one more time. Just answer the question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem#Wiles.27s_general_proof

Wiles worked on that task for six years in near-total secrecy, covering up his efforts by releasing prior work in small segments as separate papers and confiding only in his wife.

So, Wile did not explain his ideas in detail.

However, by the summer of 1991, Iwasawa theory also seemed to not be reaching the central issues in the problem. In response, he approached colleagues to seek out any hints of cutting edge research and new techniques, and discovered an Euler system recently developed by Victor Kolyvagin and Matthias Flach that seemed "tailor made" for the inductive part of his proof.

Okay, at this point he has not published anything nor is he collaborating.

in January 1993 he asked his Princeton colleague, Nick Katz, to check his reasoning for subtle errors.

At this point he still has not published anything. This is seven years after he started.

By mid-May 1993, Wiles felt able to tell his wife he thought he had solved the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, and by June he felt sufficiently confident to present his results in three lectures delivered on 21–23 June 1993 at the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences.

This was not an open publication of his ideas. I remember this quite clearly because there was a request by other mathematicians for a general publication.

Wiles spent almost a year trying to repair his proof, initially by himself and then in collaboration with Richard Taylor, without success.

Again, at this point, he is still working in secret.

On 24 October 1994, Wiles submitted two manuscripts, "Modular elliptic curves and Fermat's Last Theorem" and "Ring theoretic properties of certain Hecke algebras", ... The two papers were vetted and published as the entirety of the May 1995 issue of the Annals of Mathematics

This was the very first open publication, nine years after he started. So, contrast and compare Wile with me. Explain why he was or was not schizophrenic, attention seeking, or suffering from Dunning Kruger. Explain why he was or wasn't wrong to keep his ideas secret. Explain either how your description of me would apply equally to Wile or why it would not. If you or Beelz can't do this then why would anything else you post in this thread have any value?

Again with the straw men. Here's my argument, in full:

1.) Your ideas are discussed here.

That is it. I do not give half a damn if you want to publish it afterwards or sit on it forever, or find proof or rave about it on streetcorners. If you want to make these threads about your ideas, proceed to discuss them or quit wasting our time.


And the difference between you and your math idol is "they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

 

[RussDill]

I never said anything like that. Learning physical skills takes place in the cerebellum. It can be learned even if brain damage prevents forming new memories. The obvious conclusion to this is exactly the opposite of what you've just said. It is clear that physical skill does not require any type of cognitive ability. In other words, although a squirrel has far less cognitive ability than a human there does not seem to be much difference in terms of learning physical skills. I'm concerned with learning that takes place in the cerebrum.

You may want to read up on the mammalian motor cortex and get back to me.

 

[Reality Check]

I'm going to try this one more time. Just answer the question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem#Wiles.27s_general_proof

Why should anyone answer an ignorant and irrelevant question, barehl?
Wiles explained the details of his solution to Fermat's Last Theorem many times. He discussed it with his wife. He published parts of it (invocative of Einstein's pre-1915 papers on GR). He started with an seminar for advanced students and a colleague. He presented the solution at a seminar. He published the solution !

Wiles presented rational, coherent parts of his ideas.
You started with a vague, incoherent idea and are making it even more vague and incoherent ! That is what we see from cranks as Beelzebuddy noted.

 

[barehl]

proceed to discuss them or quit wasting our time.

You made no effort to answer my question. I don't see anything you've posted in this thread as having any value. The easiest way for you to stop wasting your time is to stop posting in this thread. However, if you can think of something relevant then feel free to share it. BTW, I don't really know who the others are that you are presenting yourself as speaking for. Presumably if one of them thinks of something relevant you can relay that as well.

 

[barehl]

You may want to read up on the mammalian motor cortex and get back to me.

Okay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_cortex

The motor cortex is the region of the cerebral cortex involved in the planning, control, and execution of voluntary movements.

This agrees with what I've said. I can't imagine where else voluntary movements would originate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebellum

The cerebellum does not initiate movement, but it contributes to coordination, precision, and accurate timing. It receives input from sensory systems of the spinal cord and from other parts of the brain, and integrates these inputs to fine-tune motor activity. Cerebellar damage produces disorders in fine movement, equilibrium, posture, and motor learning.

This also matches what I've been saying about learning physical skills. Are you saying something different from this?