4 ms·
Cherrypicked? He's describing how consciousness currently manifests itself. Which cherries did he forget to pick? Also considering much of Kurweil's "evidence"
by nollidge 14y ago
Cherrypicked? He's describing how consciousness currently manifests itself. Which cherries did he forget to pick?
Also considering much of Kurweil's "evidence" is best-fit graphs of cherry-picked data points, it's kind of ironic to lob that the other way.
> if this article wasn't citing all this quantum consciousness pseudoscience
Yeah, I guess if by "all this pseudoscience" you mean a two mentions of two very minimalistic claims. It's not like he's fabricating Deepak-Chopra-esque word salad.
- streptomycin 14y agoCherrypicked? He's describing how consciousness currently manifests itself. Which cherries did he forget to pick? Any cherry that doesn't fit his preconceived conclusion. Kurzweil has eloquently made his arguments in his books and elsewhere, which are summarily ignored here. But it's not like Kurzweil is some random crackpot that nobody supports, there are tons of scientists who agree with him. For instance, Henry Markham and his collaborators have made similar predictions about how their work will lead to human-level AI in the relatively near future. Yeah, I guess if by "all this pseudoscience" you mean a two mentions of two very minimalistic claims. It's not like he's fabricating Deepak-Chopra-esque word salad. Two brief bullet points out of a list of six brief bullet points is a fairly substantial chunk of the argument.
- pknight 14y agoWhy not supply some actual reasoning to make your points? Such as 'bullet point x' should be valued lightly because of 'insert evidence/arguments here'. Just calling things pseudoscience or stating that he has 'lot's of support from other people' only implies that you're being defensive.