= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DonaldMcIntyre comments on Leaving LessWrong for a more rational life - 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 (268)
As a relatively new user here at LessWrong (and new to rationality) it is also curious to me that many here point me to articles written by Eliezer Yudkowsky to support their arguments. I have the feeling there is a general admiration for him and that some could be biased by that rather than approaching the different topics objectively.
Also, when I read the article about dissolving problems and how algorithms feel I didn't find any evidence that it is known exactly how neuron networks work to create these feelings.
That article was a good way of explaining how we might "feel" the existence of things and how to demystify them (like free will, time, ghosts, god, etc.) but I am not sure if the "extra dangling unit in the center" is something that we know exists or if it is another construct that was built to refute things by thought experiment rather than by empiric evidence.
It's been my experience that this is usually done to point to a longer and better-argued version of what the person wants to say rather than to say "here is proof of what I want to say".
I mean, if I agree with the argument made by EY about some subject, and EY has done a lot of work in making the argument, then I'm not going to just reword the argument, I'm just going to post a link.
The appropriate response is to engage the argument made in the EY argument as if it is the argument the person is making themselves.
Kind of. But its still done when there are unanswered criticisms in the comments section.