= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Singularity Summit 2009 (quick post) - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (37)
Oh, come on. David Chalmers is probably one of the greatest philosophers of our time, even if he is insane.
Out of curiosity, on what basis do you consider him a great philosopher, especially if you describe him as insane (and tend to disagree with his conclusions, and then necessarily, his reasoning)?
I ask because I'm trying to figure out the same thing about myself, i.e. intuitively I do think of him as a great philosopher, even though I disagree with so much of what he's said. Is it just a matter of how well-known or influential he is, or maybe even of how controversial he is?
If you can execute 9 out of 10 steps in reasoning correctly, then you may still be insane on the 10th step, but you are a much more interesting person to read than people who go wrong on step 2.
This exchange seems to me to deserve some form of promotion -- does LW have anything similar to the bestof subreddit?
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_scientist">Uh oh.</a>
Sad truth about so-called "mad scientists"
“I don't think [he] is a madman. He's not even a mad scientist. He's merely a very upset engineer.”