= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lukeprog comments on Anyone have any questions for David Chalmers? - 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 (26)
Do you feel this is a full rebuttal to McDermott's paper? I agree that his generalized argument against "extendible methods" is a straw man; however, he has other points about Chalmers' failure to argue for existing extendible methods being "extendible enough."
No, our paragraph does not rebut everything we disagree with in McDermott's paper. Chalmers' reply in the forthcoming "The Singularity: a reply" is adequate.
I suppose I'd like to hear Solvent ask him about those.