Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Joshua_Fox 01 September 2007 08:45:36PM 0 points [-]

Perhaps this explains Hofstadter's puzzled reply to the Singularity, as for example at his 2006 Singularity Summit lecture. Although his thinking into the meaning of thought are surely insightful, it seems tinged at the end with a sense of that intelligence and the Singularity are Mysterious Phenomenon in the sense described above.

(However, it can sometimes hard to distinguish whether a speakeris saying "X is a Mysterious Phenomenon (in the sense above)," "X is something that I don't understand for now," and "I understand X, and so am filled with a sense of wonder.")

Comment author: MrMormon 05 April 2012 02:09:08AM 0 points [-]

Or perhaps he wanted to leave his audience with a certain effect, like wonder, hope, and dreaminess? That's how I see the future sometimes, when I have no idea what tech will boom and bust.

Comment author: DanielLC 28 December 2009 07:26:32PM 14 points [-]

Infinite regress is still a semantic stopsign. If all chickens came from eggs, and all eggs came from chickens, the obvious next question is "Why is there an infinite regress of chickens and eggs?"

There are certainly possible infinite regressions that don't exist, so it can't exist simply because of an infinite regress.

Comment author: MrMormon 03 April 2012 05:45:03AM 1 point [-]

Sometimes, the question "why?" is meaningless. If "all chickens came from eggs, and all eggs came from chickens" is a premise, that is the "why". Asking the why of the why is a tautology.