The main point I was trying to make was that given a speculative post of such breadth, which touches on such difficult issues as AGI, how the brain works and perhaps even the nature of conscious experience, and which makes some claims that are at least interesting, I think it's quite presumptuous to assert that these ideas are all nonsense without a deeper exploration of them. I certainly would not want to make such an assertion, despite being troubled by what I think are some inaccuracies in the author's description of certain physical concepts.
Now a secondary issue is that it is true that as far as I'm aware major scientific discoveries have typically been initially published in much more developed form and have thus been the work of a single individual or of a relatively small group of closely affiliated individuals. I'm not convinced however that this historical model of very small scale scientific collaboration is necessarily the only one nor the best one in light of modern means of communication.
It seems at least conceivable to me that there is a possible future in which the following hold:
* There is some kernel of validity in this author's ideas.
* A small number of other people find them intriguing and choose to collaborate with the author to further elaborate them.
* This collaboration leads to major progress in our understanding of one or more of the areas mentioned above.
For me the, admittedly very small, likelihood of such an outcome, justifies the author's post and its appearance on HN.
The main point I was trying to make was that given a speculative post of such breadth, which touches on such difficult issues as AGI, how the brain works and perhaps even the nature of conscious experience, and which makes some claims that are at least interesting, I think it's quite presumptuous to assert that these ideas are all nonsense without a deeper exploration of them. I certainly would not want to make such an assertion, despite being troubled by what I think are some inaccuracies in the author's description of certain physical concepts.
Now a secondary issue is that it is true that as far as I'm aware major scientific discoveries have typically been initially published in much more developed form and have thus been the work of a single individual or of a relatively small group of closely affiliated individuals. I'm not convinced however that this historical model of very small scale scientific collaboration is necessarily the only one nor the best one in light of modern means of communication.
It seems at least conceivable to me that there is a possible future in which the following hold:
* There is some kernel of validity in this author's ideas.
* A small number of other people find them intriguing and choose to collaborate with the author to further elaborate them.
* This collaboration leads to major progress in our understanding of one or more of the areas mentioned above.
For me the, admittedly very small, likelihood of such an outcome, justifies the author's post and its appearance on HN.