monkymind comments on A rough and incomplete review of some of John Wentworth’s research

[monkymind]

It appears people believe,

1. I wrote to persuade, not explain (in hindsight I would agree)

2. I wrote in a condescending tone (in hindsight I would agree)

3. My critique did not offer anything concrete or any models

4. My critique was “not even wrong”

5. My critique was obviously false

6. My critique was obviously true

7. My critique added nothing to the conversation

I’d love for anyone to explain which they thought and why.

Thanks!

And besides the point, I may have unintentionally (worried of criticism) underplayed my knowledge of chaos theory, complex systems, and linguistics research. But, I thought a person who had just read Nate’s critique would be especially open to a philosophical (pre-axiomatic or axiomatic) perspective.

My bottom-line thinking reading John’s arguments and thoughts was that John’s, and even Nate’s, disuse of the shared language provided by Kant and Wittgenstein hinted at either,

1. a lack of understanding of their arguments

2. an understanding of one or only a few interpretation of their arguments

[Rafael Harth]

My guess is that most people who downvoted think popular philosophy is unlikely to be relevant for no-nonsense applications like math and alignment