As you can tell, I am not going to rush them, I almost do not care.  Take your time and get what you want, but nothing will be perfect. Rationalist philosophers assumed that some human knowledge must be innate. This view was reacted against by empiricist philosophers who viewed experience as the only source of knowledge.

For the empiricists, the mind was a tabula rasa, waiting to be written upon by the World. Classical cognitive scientists are comfortable with the notion of innate knowledge have used problems of underdetermination to argue against the modern tabula rasa assumed by connectionist cognitive scientists. Yes, ups and downs expected.

The connectionists do not believe in a blank slate; they do believe in the closest mechanistic equivalent, a general purpose learning device. To assume that human cognition is the product of a physical symbol system is to also assume that mental states are intentional. With the way people communicate, cannot be too sure what they are talking about.

I am sure it was fine, probably talking about me. It is not that I am apathetic, I am used to the games. Since the invention of the digital computer, scholars have seriously considered the possibility that the brain was also a computer. Nonetheless, all of the friction and uncertainty does damper the spirit. For instance, the all-or-none nature of a neuron’s action potential has suggested that the brain is also digital in nature.

You keep using a battery, but never recharge it, it will die. Or the charge will be so low that it operates differently. An entirely too simplistic notion of intelligence has dominated both popular and scientific thought. One moment they support you, the next moment they are talking about you on the sly. And this back and forth notion is, in part, responsible for permitting artificial intelligence’s perverse grand fantasy to grow.

However, only a humanoid robot could pass such a test. And only do so by not only speaking but also behaving (in very great detail) in ways indistinguishable from a human. Just be normal and calm. The next step in the study was to create a problem behaviour graph from a subject’s protocol. They are trying to profile you, as a group, so that they can label you as a threat, but no one is sure of what the benefit would be since, “You have nothing!”

There is too much information for them to predict behavior. One is not truly living, but existing. Studying life, the environment, psychology, sociology, as religion, and after further inspection, it is clear to see this was a machination, from day one, involving ones close to you and many community members. However, because one can detect games and navigate around them, it builds confidence in one’s character.

Some may try to elicit an emotional response by teasing you with love and gifts that may never surface, without realizing that you like to see others do well and be rewarded, especially if it will keep them safe. Sometimes they will give you hope, and then take it away like a thief in the night. Not like it was mine, I would just like to see you get rid of that unsafe vehicle, and am a fan of that brand.

Behaviourism viewed language as merely being observable behaviour whose development and elicitation was controlled by external stimuli: A speaker possesses a verbal repertoire in the sense that responses of various forms appear in his behavior from time to time in relation to identifiable conditions.

A repertoire, as a collection of verbal operants, describes the potential behavior of a speaker. To ask where a verbal operant is when a response is not in the course of being emitted is like asking where one’s knee-jerk is when the physician is not tapping the patellar tendon.

They display uncertainty and immaturity and confusions. This is because the architecture is wired in. Their behaviour may change slowly (e.g., in human cognition because of biological development), but they need a lot of therapy. When someone claims that they have changed their mind, we interpret this as meaning that they have updated their facts, or that they have used a new approach or strategy to arrive at a conclusion.

We do not interpret this as a claim that they have altered their basic mental machinery —when we change our mind, we do not change our cognitive architecture (jealous of what, you ruined his life)! The architecture is cognitively impenetrable. They do not want to change, or recognize they have a problem. I used a backup plan. I have no idea which is worse, the family or the building? They both seem to be one in the same in nature.

If some function changes in content that is semantically related to the function, evidence that it is not part of the architecture. There is a strong manipulation of a belief related to the function that produces this pattern we call the Smith Virus. An example of the Smith Virus, you, as a subject, might be told that the two different people are the same person.

However, when you visually inspect them, and have a conversation, and do a DNA test, you find that not only do the two people look different, have different brain architecture, and different DNA, but their thought process and mind program is also different, which tells you that someone is trying to deceive you. For people with the Smith Virus, everyday is April Fool’s Day.

This function of an explanatory fiction is simply to allay curiosity and to bring inquiry to an end. All will see the truth.

The doctrine of ideas has had this effect by appearing to assign important problems of verbal behavior to a psychology of ideas. The problems have then seemed to pass beyond the range of the techniques of the student of language, or to have become too obscure to make further study profitable. In short, they are all working hard to conceal something before they are exposed and have to face the justice system.