On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Vlad, > > This is called a strawman argument. It is where you make a ridiculous > claim about what I meant and then proceed to shoot it down. Eliezer has > done it for years and has single-handedly been responsible for an incredible > number of people simply giving up in disgust. > > I said nothing and assume nothing about implementation. The fact that > you're jumping to implementation at this stage is just plain incorrect. > Maybe you should analyze exactly why you have such a need to prove people > wrong that you have to put words into their mouths and ideas into their > heads in order to be able to do so. >
Objection wasn't about what you asserted (did you assert anything?), but about the illusion of progress given by your words. You create some resemblance of structure by saying that you'll need 4 goals, with such-and-such content. But these 4 goals turn out to be black box LISP tokens, so it's far from clear why you picked these 4 tokens and not others, and what exactly are you asserting. When you say something, you need to assume *something* about implementation, if not explicitly by technical argument then implicitly by semitechnical or nontechnical one. If you don't assert anything, you are not saying anything. Although admittedly the last point might qualify as nitpicking if you used the words in a different sense, it's worth keeping in mind. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
