But afaict Scott is very deliberately asserting that equivalence.
-
-
It just seems like the most straightforward way of using language? I don't know what exactly it means for humans to believe or think something, so it seems like I should make the least number of assumptions about what the concept means, and then it becomes a very generic one.
-
And intentional thinking seems to be evolved to let us make predictions about the behavior of agent-like entities, so one where the concept is defined through its functional role to the agent actually seems closest to how humans naturally think about beliefs.
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Fortunately, those are not the only two possibilities!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.