The reason is that attempting to formalize a high-level property is not as big of a mistake as trying to informally describe a low-level property. (This is true even for our leading example: a mathematical equation for the appeal of Mozart will very likely be unhelpful, whereas an informal description of planetary motions could plausibly still be useful.)
I’m very confused. The example shows the exact opposite of the thesis.
Issue 2
From above the previous paragraph:
Attempting to describe consciousness with a mathematical object assumes that consciousness is a low-level phenomenon. What happens if this assumption is incorrect? I think the answer is that the approach becomes largely useless
-in other words: “what if camp 1 is wrong?”. Here, author conlcudes “camp 1 not productive”.
Is the reverse also true? Interestingly, the answer is no. If Camp #2 is correct, then research programs assuming a Camp #1 perspective are probably not optimal, but they aren’t useless, either.
-in other words: “what if camp 2 is right?”; or in other other words: “what if camp 1 is wrong?” But author concludes “camp 1 somewhat productive”.
Author supports thesis (in issue 2) with argument (from issue 1). Issue 2 alone could be explained by mixup of “camp 1” and “camp 2″, issue 1 can’t.
If I tell you “opinion: A is true and also A is false”, but give a good argument for “A is true”, you’d know what I meant.
This is not what happened here: author presents opinion that swaps definitions (issue 2), but their supporting argument is of the form “A and not-A” (issue 1). In light of issue 1, we can’t safely interpret issue 2 by assuming the author mixed up terminology, and reading it by swapping them back.
I’m really, really curious about what the author believes!!!
Oh, wow. Yeah, this sentence is flipped around, it should say “much bigger mistake” rather than “not as big of a mistake”, as it does now. Incorrectly formalizing is the bigger issue (because then you get Integrated Information Theory). Good catch! A bit shocking that no one noticed it until now.
Issue 1
I’m very confused. The example shows the exact opposite of the thesis.
Issue 2
From above the previous paragraph:
-in other words: “what if camp 1 is wrong?”. Here, author conlcudes “camp 1 not productive”.
-in other words: “what if camp 2 is right?”; or in other other words: “what if camp 1 is wrong?” But author concludes “camp 1 somewhat productive”.
Author supports thesis (in issue 2) with argument (from issue 1). Issue 2 alone could be explained by mixup of “camp 1” and “camp 2″, issue 1 can’t.
If I tell you “opinion: A is true and also A is false”, but give a good argument for “A is true”, you’d know what I meant.
This is not what happened here: author presents opinion that swaps definitions (issue 2), but their supporting argument is of the form “A and not-A” (issue 1). In light of issue 1, we can’t safely interpret issue 2 by assuming the author mixed up terminology, and reading it by swapping them back.
I’m really, really curious about what the author believes!!!
Oh, wow. Yeah, this sentence is flipped around, it should say “much bigger mistake” rather than “not as big of a mistake”, as it does now. Incorrectly formalizing is the bigger issue (because then you get Integrated Information Theory). Good catch! A bit shocking that no one noticed it until now.
Everything else is correct, I believe.