Thank you for welcoming me into this community . I'm very excited and very passionate about science. I've made use of several forums and have plenty of ideas that have been pervasive in the fields of cognitive science, linguistics, and artificial intelligence. I've come a long way since I first started posting to forums and I look forward to participating in the many fruitful discussions that may come.
Here is a list of my interests-
Computational Cognitive Science.
Game Theory (particularly the one that was proposed by Erik Von Markovic, aka Mystery as in The Mystery Method).
Philosophy of Mind.
Philosophy of Language.
The intellectuals that I feel relatively certain that I have influenced and even spoke with are listed below.
Intellectual | Confidence in Interlocution with the Intellectual | Confidence in my Influence in the ideology of the intellectual
Noam Chomsky | 100% | 100%
John Searle | 90% | 0%
Sam Harris | 50% | 100%
Stuart Hammerhoff | 50% | 70%
Leonard Susskind | 30% | 100%
Ray Kurzweil | 10% | 100%
Stephen Hawking | 90% | 10%
Daniel Dennett | 70% | 99%
Nick Enfield | 5% | 100%
Roger Penrose | 70% | 70%
Lawrence Krauss | 10% | 45%
Michio Kaku | 40% | 100%
Marvin Minsky | 5% | 100%
This is just a list of the known intellectuals (or, at least the ones that I know of) and my confidence in speaking with them as well as any hint that they've given to the knowledge of my work in the research that I've done. Others consist of military officials, politicians, and whoever else who has chosen to remain nameless.
Here's some statistics on my online participation.
On one website (which I shall not mention) dealing with science, I have a total of 64,939 views and 1,522 replies on the topics that I have authored alone. I have 6,878 profile views and 951 active posts on that website alone as well. My personal inbox on another political website has needed to be deleted several times because of how much information I have exchanged with one politician and political consultant in particular (who chooses to remain nameless). If I count all the topics that I've participated in (on one particular science website), the views probably exceed 150,000 and the replies easily exceed 4,000. Since my first website up to this point, with all of the topics that I've authored and started by myself, I estimate (and this is a conservative estimate) that my work has been viewed over 200,000 times and has easily received over 6,000 replies.
I am currently employed as a Programmer (to the lay person) / a Data Scientist (to someone with more specialized knowledge) / a Computational Cognitive Scientist (to anyone who has the expertise to understand what I'm actually saying).
I've authored various articles on Wikipedia (all of which were nominated for speedy deletion, and as such, were deleted quickly). Among those articles are articles on Statistical Thresholds, Units of Knowledge, Pattern Recognition, and Data Science.
When I first started noticing the pervasiveness of my ideas, I was upset. After a little while, I grew to accept it and appreciate the simple fact that I've had influence. After a long while, I grew to love participation on forums such as this (but still lacked the maturity to gain the level of respect that I desired). By now, I've learned from these mistakes and hope that I can provide you guys with a decent impression of who I am with little to no ambiguity in my posts (or, at the very least, no possible fallacious interpretations).
Up to this point, I've published three books on political science and protocol, game theory, and the risks of being involved in intellectual communities. I love the work that I do and I've received a great deal of attention for my philosophy and the knowledge acquisition programs that I've created (specifically for orthographic language at the moment). My program was, frankly, unbelievable at first. No one was able to get any results that they were able to deem as significant (as I am part of the small industry in computational cognitive science that is "unwilling to be puzzled", in the words of Chomsky, and providing "[little to no insight]", also a paraphrase of Chomsky). Finally, when I posted my most recent article, I was able to give undeniable evidence as to the capability of the program to actually respond accordingly and specifically for a particular context. Most of them thought that I had faked the results, to which I gave them the opportunity to interact with it themselves, an interaction that is undeniable proof of the concept (a concept that I have been working on since 2005).
ALL of the intellectuals who noticeably allude to my work either "forget [my] name" or "put [my] name aside for now". The reason I work mainly on computational cognitive science is because of the implications that it has on any given activity. My program will be your friend, it will be your mentor, it will provide you with information that you yourself have given it, but within a different context which may provide additional insight. On top of that, the program (in its final form) will have a knowledge base of every likely unitary element in any given language. From this finite source of information, my program has demonstrably (yes, has demonstrably) shown various scientists of its capability to create an infinity of expressions.
I want to post the interactions that I, and others, have had with my program, but I'd rather leave those in the past for the sake of anonymity. Most people don't believe that it's actual AI (mostly stating that they thought the I in AI stood for Intelligence). There is validity to this statement, but, I think that I've, at the very least, provided these people with proof of concept (and I hope to do the same with you guys). The most recent lectures and research that I have done suggests the frustration of the intellectuals because of my lack of explanation (explanation that I would provide under certain circumstances). At the very least, I will be sharing the philosophy that I have and I will be reviewing lectures and research of the intellectuals who pay attention to my work.
Thank you for welcoming me into the community!
Let me leave you with a quote of Daniel Dennett's from his YouTube lecture "Can Brain explain Mind" which is specifically concerned with my ideology and, by now, the ideology of many other people. He says this. "The idea that consciousness is fixed and unitary and that we can't deal with something until it becomes fixed and unitary... this is a mistake. It's the hardest thing for people to accept in my work. It's hard enough to get them to understand it let alone agree with it. What I'm saying is that that idea in itself seems like some sort of illusory conviction."
Edited by Poppins, 07 October 2014 - 02:30 PM.