= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
dfranke comments on The Irrationality Game - 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 (910)
Nothing that modern scientists are trained to regard as acceptable scientific evidence can ever provide convincing support for any theory which accurately and satisfactorily explains the nature of consciousness.
Furthermore: if the above is false, it will proven such within thirty years. If the above is true it will become the majority position among both natural scientists and academic philosophers within thirty years. Barring AI singularity in both cases. Confidence level 70%.
Confidence level?
Let's say 65%.
Might be belief hysteresis, but I am inclined towards a similar confidence level in that proposition.
I disagree but I think that might be considered a reasonable probability by most people here.