Vladimir_Nesov comments on Controlling your inner control circuits - Less Wrong

45 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 26 June 2009 05:57PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (146)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: jimrandomh 27 June 2009 03:17:46PM 4 points [-]

There is also a large literature on understanding the brain in terms of chaos theory, cellular automata, evolution, .... , and all of those can shed light on some aspects.

This statement strikes me as false. Evolution says things about what the brain does, and what it ought to do, but nothing about how it does it. Chaos theory and cellular automata are completely unrelated pieces of math. Everything else is either at the abstraction level of neurons, or at the abstraction level of "people like cake"; PCT is the only model I am aware of which even attempts to bridge the gap in between.

life is short and if the poster wants to convince me, the burden of proof lies not on my side.

Reality does not care who has the burden of proof, and it does not always provide proof to either side.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 27 June 2009 03:27:46PM *  3 points [-]

Reality does not care who has the burden of proof, and it does not always provide proof to either side.

If I'm only willing to expend a certain amount of effort for gaining understanding of a given aspect of reality, then I won't listen to any explanation that requires more effort than that. Preparing a good explanation that efficiently communicates a more accurate picture of that aspect of reality is the burden of proof in question, a quite reasonable requirement in this case, where the topic doesn't appear terribly important.