My review: this article has a very interesting list of references. Some of them are quite cool, and I certainly agree that an interesting article citing something close to this combination of citations could be written. However, the citations do not appear to me to support the article contents, which are lacking in rigor and insufficiently defined. Almost all of the steps of reasoning in the document appear to lose key formal structure of the referenced topics; I’d suggest that, to be a useful crackpot, it’s helpful to make it clear when one knows ones’ own reasoning is insufficiently formal. This article claims to be a general purpose theory, though, and because of the nonexistent formalisms as a basis, I don’t see how I’d use it as a theory of the brain.
My review: this article has a very interesting list of references. Some of them are quite cool, and I certainly agree that an interesting article citing something close to this combination of citations could be written. However, the citations do not appear to me to support the article contents, which are lacking in rigor and insufficiently defined. Almost all of the steps of reasoning in the document appear to lose key formal structure of the referenced topics; I’d suggest that, to be a useful crackpot, it’s helpful to make it clear when one knows ones’ own reasoning is insufficiently formal. This article claims to be a general purpose theory, though, and because of the nonexistent formalisms as a basis, I don’t see how I’d use it as a theory of the brain.