= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jacob_cannell comments on Anthropomorphic AI and Sandboxed Virtual Universes - 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 (123)
Of course not, but if you read through the related points, there is some mix of parallel lines of evidence to suggest efficiency and even near-optimality of some of the brain's algorithms, and that is what I spent most of the post discussing.
But yes, my tone was somewhat rude with the rhetorical demand for proof - I should have kept that more polite. But the demand for proof was not the substance of my argument.
Systematic elimination of obvious technical errors renders arguments much healthier, in particular because it allows to diagnose hypocritical arguments not grounded in actual knowledge (even if the conclusion is -- it's possible to rationalize correct statements as easily as incorrect ones).
See also this post.
point taken
(English usage: "allows" doesn't take an infinitive, but a description of the action that is allowed, or the person that is allowed, or phrase combining both. The description of the action is generally a noun, usually a gerund. e.g. "... in particular because it allows diagnosing hypocritical arguments ...")
Thanks, I'm trying to fight this overuse of infinitive. (Although it still doesn't sound wrong in this case...)
You are "allowed to diagnose" and I may "allow you to diagnose" but I would "allow diagnosis" in general, rather than "allow to diagnose". It is an odd language we have.
Yes, "allowed to" is very different than "allow".