Posts

Comments

Comment by nclsbrbki on Open Thread: May 2010 · 2010-05-23T04:09:22.517Z · LW · GW

You can argue with it.. But you don't have to, because I wrote the article and I agree with you. It's cranky stuff. :)

The description is supposed to be taken lightly (hence the tongue-in-cheek comment "in only 34 pages"). It's not scientific content, and I wouldn't claim it as such. It is because it is unscientific (and partly because contractually, my employer owns all my ideas) that it's published anonymously. It's fun to develop outrageous ideas that might be impractical to evaluate scientifically: It's wrong to claim they're proven fact, without strong evidence. Which I don't have.

Not all good ideas make good or easy science, and not all bad ideas are unscientific.

To the commenter who thinks it stinks due to use of graph representation - there is a lot of evidence for the existence of a representational system within the brain, and the graph is simply one useful way of representing information. Agreed, by themselves graph-ontologies like Cyc ( http://www.cyc.com/ ) are not conscious. Unless you're challenging representationalism itself (as behaviourists would), rejecting it on the basis that it has graphs is no better than rejecting it for the choice of font. Have a proper read, if you can spare the time.

For what it's worth, I didn't choose to put the article on lesswrong, but word eventually got back to me that a friend [of a friend... etc] had posted it. Which is quite nice actually, because I didn't know about lesswrong before and I like it now I'm here.

Anyway, have a read if you want to and I'm happy to answer questions. In the meantime I'm going to continue reading some of the other articles here.

best regards,