ata comments on Three consistent positions for computationalists - Less Wrong

5 Post author: dfranke 14 April 2011 01:15PM

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

Comments (176)

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

Comment author: ata 15 April 2011 11:02:42PM 1 point [-]

It seems like you think PJEby was implying with his question that anyone who has read the sequences would understand qualia. I don't think that is what he actually meant.

Yeah, it seems to me that it's usually intended to ask something more like "Can I use terminology and concepts found in the Sequences without explaining them further or explicitly linking to them?", though I'll agree that we should replace "Have you read the Sequences?" with something more specific in any case. (Of course, if someone wants to claim that a particular set of posts directly answers someone's question, it's always best to point to the specific posts. Unless they depend on so much before them that it makes sense to link to an entire sequence, which is probably unavoidable sometimes.)

Comment author: David_Gerard 15 April 2011 11:10:28PM *  -1 points [-]

http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Jargon needs expansion (and isn't formatted much like a jargon file for newbies).