= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on Framing Consciousness - 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 (43)
Well, that's not entirely true. If someone demanded a justification and your response was "It's obvious" then you've done something wrong. But in absence of such a demand, it's a perfectly fine justification. You have to start from somewhere.
Somewhere is not "It's obvious!" 2 + 2 = 4 is not obvious. It is a definition. (Edit) Yeah, uh, theorem.
But I see and agree with your point. I am merely arguing semantics now, which is not particularly useful.
I do stand by my original claim, however, that justification usually requires more than "It's obvious!"
Strictly speaking, it is a theorem (obvious one). 4=3+1 is a definition.