3 ms·

First, your tone comes across as unnecessarily uncivil. Your comments could be rephrased to better promote curious discussion. Second, I will respond in terms

by xpe 3y ago

First, your tone comes across as unnecessarily uncivil. Your comments could be rephrased to better promote curious discussion. Second, I will respond in terms of the charitable substance of your comment. I think there is some useful back-and-forth to be had. Please be specific: part is “complete nonsense” to you; which of the following applies? 1. You reject the predictive processing theory? Why? 2. You reject my characterization of the theory? 3. You reject my application of the theory to the example of seeing UFOs? For the reason you gave? Is there more? 4. What research have you done to support your knowledge and claims? 5. Have you read “Hallucinations and Strong Priors” in Trends in Cognitive Science [1]? I referenced it in nearby comment as well. Penultimate point: correctly or incorrectly, I am using facts and reasoning in my above comment; I don’t see how this qualifies as “hallucination” in terms of an AI or human phenomenon. Final point: there is considerable nuance and skill required to criticize effectively. In asking questions 1 through 3, I’m offering an example of a better way. [1] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.12.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.12.001

Loquebantur 3y ago
Curious discussion is engaging on the topic at hand, not on completely unrelated nonsense, that you are no expert on anyway (as you professed yourself). As already stated, the whistleblower does not fall at all in the context you are discussing here, as he reports having been briefed on research programs that study non-human technology. Now, in the case of those sightings by military pilots, you have multiple sensor systems and multiple pilots involved simultaneously. Clearly impossible to be explained by your idea here. But even in cases of single eye-witnesses, their sightings are often over extended periods of time, entirely incompatible with your paper.
- xpe 3y ago
  > Curious discussion is engaging on the topic at hand, not on completely unrelated nonsense… 1. No. This interpretation of one HN Guideline is not accurate. Such a view would justify being non-charitable, which is incompatible with the guidelines more broadly. Curious and charitable conversation should not stop because you think my comment is off-topic. 2. Regarding topicality; as I explained at length in another comment, as conversations evolve in a tree of comments, there may be considerable distance (in terms of a topic vector space) from the root. This is a normal and useful. I’m certainly open and appreciative of someone adding to the conversation. You made a connection from my points to what you see is the central point. Your connection was ‘negative’ in the sense that you suggested my points about perceptions and priors does not apply to the original post. This sense of negative is not a problem, even though I disagree with some of your logic. But the way you did it — quite harshly — was unnecessary. 3. Each time you say “utter nonsense” or “bogus” (and the like) it comes across as insulting. Are you aware of this? There are clearer phrases and terms to use that are not insulting. Depending on what you are trying to say, you might try: - you could say you disagree (in the sense of a value judgment or a subjective matter) - you could say that I’m making a logical or rational error - you could say that something is not true, factually - you could say that particular claim of mine is inconsistent with another claim - you could say that I am not providing evidence or support for a claim Onto a different point. You wrote: > not on completely unrelated nonsense, that you are no expert on anyway (as you professed yourself). 4. Stating that I am not an expert in a particular cognitive science theory does not inherently disqualify the logic of my argument. It merely suggests an openness to learning if there are mistakes. Such an openness is indicative of humility and a tendency to not overreach. As you can see in my other comments, I have recognized and agreed with some of your points. But these points have not contradicted or disproved what I wrote.

by xpe 3y ago

Loquebantur 3y ago

Curious discussion is engaging on the topic at hand, not on completely unrelated nonsense, that you are no expert on anyway (as you professed yourself). As already stated, the whistleblower does not fall at all in the context you are discussing here, as he reports having been briefed on research programs that study non-human technology. Now, in the case of those sightings by military pilots, you have multiple sensor systems and multiple pilots involved simultaneously. Clearly impossible to be explained by your idea here. But even in cases of single eye-witnesses, their sightings are often over extended periods of time, entirely incompatible with your paper.

xpe 3y ago
> Curious discussion is engaging on the topic at hand, not on completely unrelated nonsense… 1. No. This interpretation of one HN Guideline is not accurate. Such a view would justify being non-charitable, which is incompatible with the guidelines more broadly. Curious and charitable conversation should not stop because you think my comment is off-topic. 2. Regarding topicality; as I explained at length in another comment, as conversations evolve in a tree of comments, there may be considerable distance (in terms of a topic vector space) from the root. This is a normal and useful. I’m certainly open and appreciative of someone adding to the conversation. You made a connection from my points to what you see is the central point. Your connection was ‘negative’ in the sense that you suggested my points about perceptions and priors does not apply to the original post. This sense of negative is not a problem, even though I disagree with some of your logic. But the way you did it — quite harshly — was unnecessary. 3. Each time you say “utter nonsense” or “bogus” (and the like) it comes across as insulting. Are you aware of this? There are clearer phrases and terms to use that are not insulting. Depending on what you are trying to say, you might try: - you could say you disagree (in the sense of a value judgment or a subjective matter) - you could say that I’m making a logical or rational error - you could say that something is not true, factually - you could say that particular claim of mine is inconsistent with another claim - you could say that I am not providing evidence or support for a claim Onto a different point. You wrote: > not on completely unrelated nonsense, that you are no expert on anyway (as you professed yourself). 4. Stating that I am not an expert in a particular cognitive science theory does not inherently disqualify the logic of my argument. It merely suggests an openness to learning if there are mistakes. Such an openness is indicative of humility and a tendency to not overreach. As you can see in my other comments, I have recognized and agreed with some of your points. But these points have not contradicted or disproved what I wrote.