Analysis regarding Pinker Paragraph trees:
- I wrote lengthy descriptions regarding the connections between the parts of the paragraph and Elliot wrote short ones. I intentionally wrote long stuff as a strategy, as I was having some trouble/doubts in making my own tree, and I thought writing more stuff would help. So I think my approach was fine for my context.
- For the connection between Sentences 1 and 2
- Elliot wrote "restating thesis positively."
- I wrote "The child tells us what the abstract realm *is* instead of the parent, which tells us what it is not (or at least, what it does not consist of)."
- This sentence is unclear and was trying to do much in one sentence. A better rewrite is:
- The child tells us what the abstract realm is/consists of. The parent merely tells us what the abstract realm does not consist of.
- This sentence is unclear and was trying to do much in one sentence. A better rewrite is:
- Analysis: Both descriptions are getting at the idea that the child frames Pinker's claims positively (which doesn't happen in the parent, which is negative). I would be hesitant to call Sentence 2 a restatement of the thesis because I don't see that Pinker's quite gotten his thesis out until Sentence 2. It'd be possible to get it out in Sentence 1, but I don't think he succeeded in that. So I guess I have some mild disagreement with that description.
- If I were rewriting Pinker's sentences in order to put what I think is the main point in the first sentence, I'd do it something like this:
- Artificial intelligence proves that knowledge, reason and purpose, rather than being miraculous or supernatural, are actually connected to physical reality via the concepts of information, computation, and control.
- If I were rewriting Pinker's sentences in order to put what I think is the main point in the first sentence, I'd do it something like this:
- For the connection between Sentence 2 and Sentences 3, 4, and 5
- Elliot wrote "explanation for knowledge", "explanation for "reason", and "explanation for purpose:
- I wrote: "The children give examples of how knowledge, reason, and purpose can be linked to the physical realm via information, computation, and control"
- I think "explanation" (ET's description) is a better word choice than "example". I think that, for each case of knowledge, reason, and purpose, Pinker was trying to explain how it could be linked to the physical realm via information, computation, and control, respectively. "Example" suggests that he's talking about some specific concrete examples, which isn't the case.
- For the connection between Sentence 1 and Sentence 6
- Elliot wrote "elaboration: intelligence comes from computation not special tissue"
- I wrote: "Pinker previously discussed information/computation/control. The child wants to cash in on those concepts in order to claim that the naturally evolved brain isn't special. This connects to the parent's rejection of "miraculous powers of neural tissue" as an explanation."
- I think Elliot's description is better as a high level summary of what Pinker's point is, despite me using many more words.
- For the connection between Sentence 1 and Sentence 7
- Elliot wrote "evidence/proof"
- I wrote: " Pinker started out, in the parent, claiming that AI proves something about the abstract realm, and then discussed a connection between the abstract realm and information, computation, and control. The child further develops or elaborates the point about what Pinker thinks AI proves. "
- My description is too complex and confusing. It'd be better rewritten as:
- In the parent, Pinker claimed that AI proves something about the abstract realm. He then (in other nodes) discussed a connection between the abstract realm and information, computation, and control. The child further develops or elaborates the point about what Pinker thinks AI proves.
- My description is too complex and confusing. It'd be better rewritten as:
- I don't see any significant disagreement on this point.