Ankap - Angry at the Mayans for a false prediction? POST YOUR GRIEVANCES HERE!

[omniscient]

Everybody please refer to my STFU thread, thank you, thank you very much.

[Anonymouse]

Thank you for your recommendation. I have read Freud in my early teens. Nowadays, a mention to Freud is more symbolic, it does not necessarily refer to the person; that was also the case in my post! I thought that Stanford offered a higher quality/level of education! Maybe I should not base my opinion (of Stanford) on your case! LOL!






Of course! LOL!
I have noticed that - considering your repetitious nature and the repetition rate- reading randomly 5% of your posts was enough to cover them all! LOL! I'm sure that, just like a broken record, you will repeat last summer's posts ad infinitum and ad nauseum!
Now, I'll leave you alone for a while because even after a day you became so fastidiously boring. Most of all "j'ai d'autres chats à fouetter!" LOL!

"Hi I am Siamanto and I post cultured posts and I also display my knowledge of French because it makes me look cultured and I like to post about pipes which are not really pipes if you think about them because post-modernism says so!"

[Siggie]

Oh Siamanto c'mon. Is behaviorism bad?
Freud cannot be tested. That which is not testable is not science.

[karoaper]

Aoccdrnig to a rscheacher at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.

[Siamanto]

Oh Siamanto c'mon. Is behaviorism bad?

Of course not! I'm sorry if I gave you that impression! It's simply a different model, that may not be reducible to the Psychoanalytic model. Of course, their may be an overlap.
Personally, I view scientific knowledge as empirical data/observations [b]modeled[/n] or presented according to a specific model. The words "good" and "bad" are not attributes of a model; unless "bad" means incomplete or inaccurate.
Models are semantically - and often structurally - different. That's - in a nutshell - what I meant. The keywords are "different" and "non-reducible."

Freud cannot be tested.

That is a vast subject i.e. what may be the value of Freud's views? Epistemologist - and for the most part were Anglo-Saxons - would say no. Maybe another day!

That which is not testable is not science.

Are you're familiar with Karl Popper's philosophy/epistemology?

[Siamanto]

Aoccdrnig to a rscheacher at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.

I'll be brief. Have you heard of fuzzy search? I believe that pattern recognition is based - or can be modeled - in terms of fuzzy search!

[thedebutante]

Yes! Many does not constitute a majority. Did I say that?
What I said still holds
1- The majority is only true in the Anglo-Saxon world where behaviorism is religion
2- Even in the Anglo-Saxon world his contribution has been much greater than what you have stated. My previous post id more detailed.

Please keep in mind that the world is not limited to the Anglo-Saxon views. The world is far more diverse!

here siamanto is NOT repeating himself

[thedebutante]

Thank you for your recommendation. I have read Freud in my early teens. Nowadays, a mention to Freud is more symbolic, it does not necessarily refer to the person; that was also the case in my post! I thought that Stanford offered a higher quality/level of education! Maybe I should not base my opinion (of Stanford) on your case! LOL!






Of course! LOL!
I have noticed that - considering your repetitious nature and the repetition rate- reading randomly 5% of your posts was enough to cover them all! LOL! I'm sure that, just like a broken record, you will repeat last summer's posts ad infinitum and ad nauseum!
Now, I'll leave you alone for a while because even after a day you became so fastidiously boring. Most of all "j'ai d'autres chats à fouetter!" LOL!

here siamanto displays his intelligence for all to admire.

[thedebutante]

here siamanto displays his intelligence for all to admire.

here deb is NOT being sarcastic

[karoaper]

I'll be brief. Have you heard of fuzzy search? I believe that pattern recognition is based - or can be modeled - in terms of fuzzy search!

My post was purely a joke, but you're right, fuzzy search can be applied. However, fuzzy searches are based on pattern recognition and string matching, not the other way. Some of the common algorithms for doing such complex string matching and pattern recognition are machine learning, suffix trees, time-warping, HMMs and so on.