= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Academian comments on There just has to be something more, you know? - 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 (75)
That's the idea!
...except that I wanted to link to what I had read, and parts of the article I thought were critical were then deleted. I would have preferred you not tell me to link it if you were still allowing yourself to perform major edits.
Edit: Jack quoted one of the critical missing concepts before it was deleted.
Yes, many apologies... I hadn't been planning on significant further edits. Anyway, the hope is that now you will be able to link directly to the part that interests you.
The part that interested me was both parts together. I upvoted it before the edits, but butchered like this, I am about one trivial impetus from downvoting. Primarily because the way it stands, it sounds like it means that "electrons" are "conscious" and other such woo.
Edit: I've decided not to downvote it, but I'm still dissatisfied with the way you've handled this.
The second half is re-posted, with a clear lead in to it at the bottom of the first, to guard against "woo". I decided this was the best compromise between unity and requiring people to wade through an introduction that doesn't serve them (see other comments by taw, Morendil, Jonathan_Graehl ... ).
That's a pretty good compromise - I'll leave it there.