>While admittedly the promise of algorithms that reconstruct internally generated or externally induced percepts is yet to be fully achieved I find this kind o

>While admittedly the promise of algorithms that reconstruct internally generated or externally induced percepts is yet to be fully achieved I find this kind of writing kind of sad. It seems to me that the authors clearly wanted to write something about reading minds, and its quite logical. But they have to write in this obtuse, dry way because even in speculation they need to be precise. I am not sure if this is good or bad practice, but its pervasive in academic writing and I don't like it. A paper should not lose credibility because they went on a flight of fancy for a sentence or two.