My Ghost Story

[Axxman300]

Oh, oh! I have an unevidenced ghost story, Can get a free bear?

You just have to tell it well. Everybody loves a good ghost story.

 

[Axxman300]

My understanding is that it's essentially all down to the fact that, whilst false positives and false negatives are both mistakes, false positives are less potentially dangerous mistakes than false negatives. Mistaking a shadow for a bear may cause you to spend the night in the open rather than in a warm dry cave, but mistaking a bear for a shadow gets you eaten. We're all descended from those who survived long enough to produce offspring, ie those whose mistakes were more likely to be false positives than false negatives. So our brains have evolved cognitive biases which make them more likely to see patterns in the noise, even when there is in fact only noise, than miss a real pattern. In order to be sure the pattern we think we see is really there we need to compensate for those biases, which is why we invented the scientific method.

ETA: For example there are noises going on around us all the time, our brains are constantly filtering most of them out as noise and picking out just a few to bring to the attention of our conscious awareness. The OP's brain picked out what sounded like footsteps and alerted his consciousness to them; the question is whether it was correct to do so, ie whether this was a true positive or a false positive.

Likewise we dream all the time, we often dream about people we know/have known, and occasionally something we dream is bound to correspond with something that later happens (especially when our memories are sufficiently malleable to retrospectively alter the dream to match the event). When someone attributes significance to one such correspondence are they doing so correctly, or is it a false positive? The only reliable way to find out whether dreams can genuinely be precognitive is to collect thousands of such dreams, accurately estimate the expected chance hit rate, and measure the actual hit rate for comparison. ie to use the scientific method to compensate for our propensity to see patterns that aren't actually there.

Exactly.

My first big evolution in my thinking came one day when I was driving in the rain through the woods. As I came to a stop sign I glanced to my left and at first saw an old man riding a bicycle wearing a yellow rain slick, but when I looked again it turned out to be a mail box.

My brain, already on the lookout for jogger and little kids, took an incomplete image and made a picture.

 

[JayUtah]

Regardless of the motivation, one should consider the idea on it's own merit.

The question of whether the dream occurred or didn't occur doesn't really have any relevance regarding the idea...

It has exactly the relevance you gave it. You're telling your own ghost story in a thread clearly marked for ghost stories. You explicitly told us your pseudo-physics speculation was aimed at trying to justify or explain your belief that your mother actually appeared to you, rather than the more prosaic explanation that you merely dreamed about her.

If the alleged apparition was not factual, then there is no need to explore speculative physics to explain it. An embellished dream serves perfectly well as an explanation. And unfortunately for your argument, the scientific method does not simply ignore clearly-stated non-evidentiary motives for favoring one explanation over another. On the contrary it explicitly notes such motives and rejects any subjective portion of the explanation as biased.

Einstein started out with thought experiments and it was many years later before any evidence for his theories could be established.

Einstein started out with a clearly demonstrated knowledge of the pertinent underlying sciences, something you have not done. For that and reasons expounded by others, you are not in the same class as Einstein. The argument, "Noteworthy Person did _____; I also do _____, therefore I am equivalent to Noteworthy Person" is specious on its face.

Einsten sought to explain emergent discrepancies that were factually uncontested. You haven't yet shown that there is anything factual that requires explanation. Einstein didn't ask people to believe his speculation as an explanation for things only he had claimed to see and hear. So no, his speculation was not specious. Yours, in contrast, is.

You make your own assumptions regarding my motivations therefore I feel free to do the same.

No. On more than one occasion you have asked us to grant you credibility for your ghost story because, as you say, why would you make up a story like that? When you clearly invite people to speculate about your motives, don't get upset when they do. Conversely no one has asked you speculate on their motives. So kindly don't.

There is no way to test my idea at this point. I'm sure nothing about my idea is original so it's only a matter of time before more research will evolve, whether I'm right or wrong remains to be seen.

But you're patently uninterested in science that we have today that illustrate why your claim doesn't hold. That makes it difficult to evaluate your claims in the context of pure scientific curiosity. Holding out hope that someday science will vindicate your beliefs is about as unscientific as one can get.

Not necessarily, why would physicists be consulted on consciousness?

You tell me; citing physicists was your idea, as was claiming variously that they support your beliefs or that you base your beliefs upon them.

This is one of those topics that would require a convergence of multiple branches of science before we could ever obtain any evidence, assuming we ever could.

I do criticize you, and a few others, because you haven't demonstrated to me that you understand the scientific method...

And I'll put your opinion of my competence in the scientific method up there on the shelf next to that of the faculties of three major universities and half a dozen or so employers in the scientific and engineering fields. For the past nearly 30 years I've made my living by employing the scientific method. Guess how much your evaluation matters.

It's obvious that you didn't. Tegmark only said that quantum states would become decoherent before they could reach the temporal level but he did find evidence for quantum processes related to transport of energy.

Doubling-down on the babble is probably not a good idea amongst this crowd. Tegmark discussed his exceptions to the limiting properties I mentioned, and I cover them in a previous post.

It depends on how capable you are of synthesizing multiple research conclusions from various branches of science. You might not be familiar with everything to be able to discount what I'm suggesting. It seems you aren't based on what you've posted so far.

[...]

I have issues with mediocrity posing as superiority. I've been asked specifically to demonstrate my understanding of different concepts, no one else here has returned the favor.

It's difficult to have a conversation when one side of it is simply haughty disdain for her critics and exaltation of her own undemonstrated prowess. I don't see how you're the one "capable ... of synthesizing multiple research conclusions from various branches of science." What I see is someone having thrown an uncoordinated, widely-netted mush of speculation and poorly-understood science on the ground and expected them to form some sort of coherent, convincing proof. You can't even decide whether you beliefs follow from that mush or whether you are freely speculating in contradiction to them.

I wish I could say this is an unfamiliar pattern, but alas it is not. Comparing oneself favorably to eminent practitioners, dancing between speculation and advocacy, accusing one's critics of incompetence or narrow-mindedness when questioned -- yes, that's every amateur pseudo-physicist on the web, ever.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

A recent post from NeuroLogica seems relevant at this point.
The gist is that speculation leads to jumping to the wrong conclusions. whereas skepticism, being a more cautious approach, is generally borne out. The idea that speculation ahead of any evidence is the way science, and therefore increasing our knowledge of the world, is and should work is soundly refuted.

But here is where I find there is often a disconnect between scientists and the public, exacerbated by pseudoscientists: when scientists encounter an anomaly, what does that mean and how do they proceed? I often find that pseudoscientists encounter an anomaly and simply declare the anomaly as evidence for (or even proof of) the phenomenon for which they are looking. “You see that electromagnetic field? That’s a ghost.”

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/history-validates-initial-skepticism/

 

[JayUtah]

The idea that speculation ahead of any evidence is the way science, and therefore increasing our knowledge of the world, is and should work is soundly refuted.

Indeed. Of all the amateur web.physicists who compare themselves to a famous real physicist, most compare themselves to Einstein. I have yet to figure out whether this is because he's the only physicist they can name, or whether because there are so many things said about him that in addition to his body of genuine works there is now a lake of urban legends attributed to him.

The most famous quip relevant to your statement is the famous, "Imagination is more important than knowledge," which everyone rail-splits right there, even the T-shirts they sell at my local planetarium. It is almost universally accepted among web.physicists that this was meant to describe his approach to science. It wasn't. The full quote, which continues, "For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand," talks about the advancement of science.

Similarly, Einstein's "though experiments" were not just rampant speculation. They generally fell into two categories, those meant to structure a non-empirical test of a hypothesis, and those meant to illustrate the problems he was trying to solve. They were not barren what-if scenarios of the kind web.physicists love so well. Einstein knew full well many of his hypotheses dealt with concepts that he could not prove empirically at the time. For example, they treated how things behaved at speeds approaching that of light, clearly not something easily obtained with equipment of his day. But he didn't just throw his hands up and say, "Well, we can't actually test this so I'll just keep proposing it as a fervent hope." Instead his "thought experiments" turned to mathematics for the proofs. There were proofs, just not empirical ones.

Conversely he posed "thought experiments" the same way every teacher of physics does to help illustrate difficult concepts. The classic illustration of relativistic velocities is one of those: you're on a train going .75 c and you throw a baseball forward at .75 c -- what is the space-fixed velocity of the ball? It's not speculation per se, it's simply a way to formulate problems for later reasoning. The reasoning occurred, rest assured.

The notion that scientific hypotheses are the product first of speculation, therefore speculation is appropriate to science, misses the point. That hypothesization is a constituent of the scientific process is not in debate. That speculation forms a substitute for scientific reasoning is not. Oven baking is a constituent step in both pottery and breadmaking. That doesn't make their products equivalent. Science is hypothesization followed by testing. Web.physicists typically excuse themselves from the testing phase by pointing out that it's impossible. Then they invoke Einstein et al. to validate that approach, pointing out that Einstein's theories of relativity weren't proven empirically until much later. They ignore that Einstein's theories were proven by a different means. Einstein didn't tell the world, "Sorry, I can't prove any of this so you'll just have to take my word for it and hope science eventually recognizes my genius."

"Science is incomplete, therefore ghosts" is not an argument. "My critics don't understand my genius, therefore ghosts" is not an argument. "You guys have no imagination, therefore ghosts" is not an argument.

 

[Jodie]

And this is more evidence for the gaming hypothesis, but I will follow JayUtah's lead and leave motivation out, at least for the moment.

Of everyone actively involved in this discussion JayUtah (to whom you are responding) is the one who has demonstrated absolutely the best understanding, so either you have not read his posts, have read them and not understood them, or understood them but are pretending.

After JayUtah come a few others, myself included, who have shown a good layman's grasp.

After that group, going strictly by the posts in this thread, is you. Your links contradict each other and your claim. You repeatedly talk about the math and how it supports you and/or you can use it as a launching pad, but everything you say indicates you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

That's where we are. I've read your posts and watched all but one of your videos. You haven't read our posts -- or at least show no indication of understanding them -- and haven't watched the one video Cosmic Yak put out there for you.

You are where you were long ago, i.e., tossing your desired outcome around as if it is supported by something. It's not, even despite your attempts to compare your musings to those of Einstein. It was not his thought experiments that were proven later; it was the math that he had used the thought experiments to illustrate.

Indirect self-comparisons to real geniuses do you no credit.

YOU thought his description of the scientific method was accurate? That is just sad.

I don't compare myself to Einstein, I'm comparing the hypotheses that some of these scientists that I've cited to Einstein. The math involved remains to be verified but it starts with a thought experiment.

As for the video, I'm just now getting to the links for Song's paper.

 

[JayUtah]

YOU thought his description of the scientific method was accurate? That is just sad.

Explain in exactly what way it is sad.

I don't compare myself to Einstein, I'm comparing the hypotheses that some of these scientists that I've cited to Einstein.

Nonsense. Your claims were rejected as specious. You cited Einstein's thought experiments in direct response to my post about your speculation, and asked if we should also reject Einstein's thought experiments as well. Your argument makes no sense unless you were comparing yourself to Einstein. Comparing those other people to Einstein neither helps nor hinders your argument.

The math involved remains to be verified...

The math involves remains to be presented. You suggested that your claim has a mathematical basis, but we have yet to see a single iota of math from you. You suggested further that the mathematics involved were to be found in your various citations, but when pressed you conceded you were departing from (and thus contradicting) those robust presentations.

Your claim is evidently in no way based upon mathematics.

 

[Jodie]

You have been asked to demonstrate that what you claim is true. You have failed to do so. In the meantime, others here have demonstrated a grasp of the relevant concepts yet you pretend they have not.

I've seen no evidence that any of you understand the concepts. You referred to my synopsis of physics, or the aspects that indicate that we live in a multidimensional universe as "weird stuff".......OK. There isn't anything else I can say to something like that.

If you wish to drop your dream claim that's fine, except now you need something else to indicate what the idea is. If it is that the consciousness of a deceased person not only survives but can communicate via dreams events still in the future to a living person, then you still have the same burden of proof. If that is not the idea, then you need to elucidate it.

It has changed as a result of our conversations here, not specifically you, but from everyone as a whole. I think that our consciousness is multidimensional and that our physical brain acts as a type of lens. If that is the case, then there would be no need for my mother to tell me anything, my own higher self would know. Now whether I would be able to communicate with that extension of myself is debatable. How would it occur? Maybe some form of intuition? I don't know. I'm assuming it would have to be via some kind of thought form if the brain acts as a type of lens in this layer of existence.

No. The reason to question its authenticity is that you have not demonstrated that it is, in fact, authentic.

How would one demonstrate that a dream was authentic? That's pure nonsense.

You are actually pretty good at this gaming. The derails are all yours, Jodie.

I'm not sure how gaming could be applied to this or how stating a simple idea on a forum would be part of that. The only game going on here is when people attribute various motives for starting the discussion because they don't appreciate what's being said.

Let's cut to the chase then and prevent all derails:

1. Regardless if it actually occurred to you or not, your hypothesis is that the consciousness of a deceased person (a) survives the person's death, (b) can invade the dream of a living person, and (c) convey accurate prophetic information via that dream

No, see the modified statement above. I would like to add that if consciousness exists on other dimensional levels as extensions of ourselves then it's possible that individual consciousness is just an illusion.

2. In support of your hypothesis you offer:

a. A general reference to the work of Song, but the general reference does not in fact support the hypothesis

So someone stated, but you didn't read his paper or the math to come to that conclusion for yourself. I happened to read it from the links that Cosmic Yak included, Song left out time as a factor. My counter argument to that is that time would only be relevant here for the observer, not in other dimensional space since time wouldn't exist. I don't agree with Song's comments on evolution as they apply to our existence, we most definitely did evolve. However, evolution, or anything else related to our "now" is a matter of perspective of the past,present, future so the corrected equations would work in that respect.

b. A video by Bryanton on the 5th Dimension, but the video -- besides being quite silly -- says nothing that supports any part of your hypothesis

I'm not certain why you would take issue with him. He simply tried to put the concepts in to a visual format for better understanding.

c. A general reference to Christof Koch, but Koch's work very clearly runs counter to your hypothesis

He's studying the neural correlates for consciousness, how is this opposed to my idea? If consciousness is expressed through the brain one would need to understand the mechanism for how that happens.

d. A general reference to Tegmark, but Tegmark's work very clearly runs counter to your hypothesis

Not really, he didn't find what he was looking for but did find evidence that suggested that quantum processes are involved in energy transference.

e. A claim that the math supports your hypothesis but a refusal to indicate whose math where

Any of the physicists I listed have there own equations to support what they are saying. You asked for the equations to be reproduced here, that links weren't good enough. I don't have the keys on my laptop to do that but I explained what cosmological aspects might indicate multidimensionality, the "weird stuff" that you commented on.

Please let's not derail. We are in the meat of it now so now is your chance.

Where is the math that supports your hypothesis?

Equations for the Kaluza Hypothesis- expands Einsteins work to include the 5th dimension.
Equations that express Calabi -Yau Manifolds that describe 10 extra dimensions.

These are specific for string theory but the equations build one upon another to describe a whole concept. You can't separate out one sequence and say,
" This is the equation that states other dimensions exist."

What exactly in Tegmark and Koch support your hypothesis and in what fashion?

Koch was trying to identify specific neurons of the brain that are responsible for specific processes. He's looking at function, he's not looking at the brain as a receiver. Now take what Song and Tegmark say about quantum processes and apply that to the research Koch has done. If you can't replicate a human neural network to express consciousness, then it isn't strictly a matter of A+B+C do this...

That does appear to be the problem. The person with the claim is demonstrating a superficial understanding.

But I could be wrong, seriously. It only needs demonstrating.

Of course there are people that have a better understanding of these concepts than I do. All I'm saying is that the loudest critics here probably aren't those people.

 

[JayUtah]

I've seen no evidence that any of you understand the concepts.

Yep, just keep poisoning that well, Jodie.

How would one demonstrate that a dream was authentic? That's pure nonsense.

No more nonsensical than your demand that we explain it. The difference is that our demand for you to substantiate the reality of it arises from, and is subservient to, your demand for an explanation. But for your challenge to your critics to explain the dream, such a demand for substantiation would never have arisen.

Not really, [Tegmark] didn't find what he was looking for but did find evidence that suggested that quantum processes are involved in energy transference.

"Energy transference" is not consciousness or ghosts. If you believe differently, you prove it. Tegmark doesn't.

Any of the physicists I listed have there own equations to support what they are saying.

But it is your contention (sometimes) that the equations support what you're saying. You haven't shown that your suppositions follow necessarily from what they say. In fact you conted (at other times) that you depart from them and therefore necessarily at those times contradict them. You can't therefore rely upon their mathematics if they support a contradictory argument.

From your critics' perspective, you have suggested you have a mathematical basis for your beliefs, but you simply handwave toward someone else's mathematical elaboration. You are being asked to supply your own now.

Equations that express Calabi -Yau Manifolds that describe 10 extra dimensions.

Not the same dimensions as in your speculation. I explored the idea of conceptual dimensionality at some length. I find it disappointing that you now write as if that exploration doesn't exist.

Of course there are people that have a better understanding of these concepts than I do. All I'm saying is that the loudest critics here probably aren't those people.

But you can't explain how or why. You have simply, from Day One, insisted that your critics are beneath you.

 

[Jodie]

Explain in exactly what way it is sad.

I commented previously on why you were incorrect. If he doesn't understand the reason then that is sad.

Nonsense. Your claims were rejected as specious. You cited Einstein's thought experiments in direct response to my post about your speculation, and asked if we should also reject Einstein's thought experiments as well. Your argument makes no sense unless you were comparing yourself to Einstein. Comparing those other people to Einstein neither helps nor hinders your argument.

It is your opinion that my argument is specious, what evidence do you have for that? Hypotheses in physics that haven't been tested or verified are all thought experiments, so is my idea. My original statement was that it took many decades before Einstein's thought experiment was proven. It might take many more than that to even get to a point where we'ld know what evidence to look for, for the existence of multidimensional consciousness. In that respect, the situation is similar. But this is just another debate tactic toderail the discussion away from a topic that you find hard to consider.

The math involves remains to be presented. You suggested that your claim has a mathematical basis, but we have yet to see a single iota of math from you. You suggested further that the mathematics involved were to be found in your various citations, but when pressed you conceded you were departing from (and thus contradicting) those robust presentations.

Your claim is evidently in no way based upon mathematics.

My claim is based on the premise that other dimensions do exist based on the mathematics that indicates their presence. Why would anything that exists here be limited to just 4 dimensions whether it was human consciousness or a rock?

 

[JayUtah]

Now take what Song and Tegmark say about quantum processes and apply that to the research Koch has done. If you can't replicate a human neural network to express consciousness, then it isn't strictly a matter of A+B+C do this...

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what quantum mechanics is. The inability to produce an automaton consisting of some particular vocabulary, that replicates quantum behavior, is not proof that such behavior must lie outside the ordinary expression of the physical world. The nature of quantum-governed systems is exactly that the progressive outcomes transcend the purview of A+B+C-do-this, yet conforms entirely to statistically knowable states of the system. Replace addition with Hamiltonians in your model and you have Tegmark's principal product, which he argues satisfies his definition of consciousness.

 

[Jodie]

Yep, just keep poisoning that well, Jodie.



No more nonsensical than your demand that we explain it. The difference is that our demand for you to substantiate the reality of it arises from, and is subservient to, your demand for an explanation. But for your challenge to your critics to explain the dream, such a demand for substantiation would never have arisen.



"Energy transference" is not consciousness or ghosts. If you believe differently, you prove it. Tegmark doesn't.



But it is your contention (sometimes) that the equations support what you're saying. You haven't shown that your suppositions follow necessarily from what they say. In fact you conted (at other times) that you depart from them and therefore necessarily at those times contradict them. You can't therefore rely upon their mathematics if they support a contradictory argument.

From your critics' perspective, you have suggested you have a mathematical basis for your beliefs, but you simply handwave toward someone else's mathematical elaboration. You are being asked to supply your own now.



Not the same dimensions as in your speculation. I explored the idea of conceptual dimensionality at some length. I find it disappointing that you now write as if that exploration doesn't exist.



But you can't explain how or why. You have simply, from Day One, insisted that your critics are beneath you.

Because you have done nothing to explain why you think the premise is wrong. What exploration of dimensional reality did you do? I must have missed it.

 

[Jodie]

A recent post from NeuroLogica seems relevant at this point.
The gist is that speculation leads to jumping to the wrong conclusions. whereas skepticism, being a more cautious approach, is generally borne out. The idea that speculation ahead of any evidence is the way science, and therefore increasing our knowledge of the world, is and should work is soundly refuted.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/history-validates-initial-skepticism/

I would agree if I had stated my idea was fact but I haven't. There has to be some speculation involved based on what is known. If you can't state what you are looking for in your research you won't get funding.

 

[JayUtah]

I commented previously on why you were incorrect. If he doesn't understand the reason then that is sad.

Not an answer, Please try again.

It is your opinion that my argument is specious, what evidence do you have for that?

Asked and answered at length. In any case the point at hand is you comparing yourself to Einstein. Either you did so and must confront the hubris of that argument, or you did not and your argument is moot. Which is it?

My claim is based on the premise that other dimensions do exist based on the mathematics that indicates their presence. Why would anything that exists here be limited to just 4 dimensions whether it was human consciousness or a rock?

Your argument is that your vague mashup of physics and speculation constitute a scientific rationale for believing your mother actually appeared to you in the guise of a dream figure and portended the future. This is a thread about ghost stories in which you have proffered a ghost story. Do not suddenly pretend it is now just a coffeehouse physics discussion.

None of what you've presented proves the ghost of your mother predicted the future.

 

[JayUtah]

I would agree if I had stated my idea was fact but I haven't. There has to be some speculation involved based on what is known.

You have at times assured us your idea is speculation. You have at other times identified it as "scientific" speculation, by which we apparently meant to see something more rigorous than mere speculation. You have at times stated that your speculation is based on the findings and conjectures of well-known scientists. You have at other times clarified that you contradict, disagree, or otherwise depart from them as you feel necessary and useful.

In other words, you seem to have deployed a chimeric argument that defies all critical evaluation by changing form as the occasion requires.

 

[JayUtah]

Because you have done nothing to explain why you think the premise is wrong. What exploration of dimensional reality did you do? I must have missed it.

Denial is not an argument. The other contributors managed to notice without difficulty my discussion of the mathematical basis of Tegmark's proofs.

 

[Jodie]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what quantum mechanics is. The inability to produce an automaton consisting of some particular vocabulary, that replicates quantum behavior, is not proof that such behavior must lie outside the ordinary expression of the physical world. The nature of quantum-governed systems is exactly that the progressive outcomes transcend the purview of A+B+C-do-this, yet conforms entirely to statistically knowable states of the system. Replace addition with Hamiltonians in your model and you have Tegmark's principal product, which he argues satisfies his definition of consciousness.

Then what does it prove? We should be able to replicate it and we can't.

 

[JayUtah]

Then what does it prove?

Get an appropriate degree and find out.

We should be able to replicate it and we can't.

No. As I said, the vocabulary of automata and the vocabulary of quantum dynamics have only a slight intersection.

You told me once that you doubted my expertise in artificial intelligence. I listed my qualifications and asked for yours. I never heard back from you. The expectation you express above requires some degree of expertise. Therefore I will repeat my question.

What are your academic and/or professional qualifications in the field of artificial intelligence?

 

[Jodie]

Not an answer, Please try again.

You described the scientific method as a closed system with a start and finish when it is a fluid process that doesn't necessarily have a linear flow.

Asked and answered at length. In any case the point at hand is you comparing yourself to Einstein.

I compared the two situations as being thought experiments.

Either you did so and must confront the hubris of that argument, or you did not and your argument is moot. Which is it?

Neither, you are on a side bar to derail the original discussion.

Your argument is that your vague mashup of physics and speculation constitute a scientific rationale for believing your mother actually appeared to you in the guise of a dream figure and portended the future. This is a thread about ghost stories in which you have proffered a ghost story. Do not suddenly pretend it is now just a coffeehouse physics discussion.

The discussion has progressed and I know longer think the dream was literally my mother. In my theory it wouldn't be necessary, I could simply inform myself.

None of what you've presented proves the ghost of your mother predicted the future.

And nothing ever will, I only speculate as to how it might have happened.

 

[Jodie]

Get an appropriate degree and find out.

That's hubris on your part. You don't know the answer because you didn't truly understand what you posted in the first place.

No. As I said, the vocabulary of automata and the vocabulary of quantum dynamics have only a slight intersection.

You told me once that you doubted my expertise in artificial intelligence. I listed my qualifications and asked for yours. I never heard back from you. The expectation you express above requires some degree of expertise. Therefore I will repeat my question.

Where? I never saw it. I've stated what I do for a living numerous times on here. I make no pretense at being an expert at anything I'm discussing.

What are your academic and/or professional qualifications in the field of artificial intelligence?

What are yours sir?