= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
AlexMennen comments on How SIAI could publish in mainstream cognitive science journals - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (76)
Agree or disagree with the following statement?
"After publishing the paper in a philosophy journal so that academics would be allowed to talk about it without losing face, you would have to write a separate essay to explain the ideas to anyone who actually wanted to know them, including those philosophers."
I don't know. But even if you are correct, writing papers for the sole purpose of getting SIAI to be taken seriously, rather than actually explaining anything, sounds like a good idea anyway (assuming that it would work and that actually explaining things would not, that is).