11–20 of 32 posts
I suspect my own comments on this site will probably age just as goatily. There was something that happened in the late 80s and 90s where difficult philosophy and just riffing on the logic of an idea got conflated. My 90's alternative high school english class taught by a cultural studies PhD assigned us BBS t-files and we got a lot of stuff like this. It was like philosophy, but without rigor or competence, and when…
This isn’t a strong rebuttal to this paper, though I read it closely, enjoy both sides of the mind-body problem, and do my best to seek some sort of external truth in the matter…
But I’m inclined to disagree with Jaron on the following point: What if the contents of the mind (consciousness notwithstanding for a moment), which surely must include information or data, doesn’t represent the complete anatomy of the systems involved in the mind-body problem. What if subjective experience is an objective realization of some sort of a information-vitality singularity.
Then we could not be confident that the argumentation (mainly the metaphors) in this paper accurately model reality - at least as far as I can tell.
And that’s really it: What if the mind-body problem, with its dual objective/subjective complexities, cannot be modeled until we first understand consciousness. Put differently:
What if we can’t model the M-B problem until we first solve it.
Perhaps objective experiment? Some sort of truly demonstrable proof by induction? Whatever gets us away from abstracting the problem itself. In the meantime, I’m fond of some of the various theological approaches. And if I was put to the question, my bet is that this answer is unknowable.
I’m not sure if I’m a zombie? I’d rather be a cynical zagnet; I certainly don’t think that subjective experience does not exist.
I ought to buy anyone who reads through this comment a drink. Here lies my knee jerk reaction. Thanks for posting, and thank you to Jason for giving me a bit to chew on.
I suspect my own comments on this site will probably age just as goatily. There was something that happened in the late 80s and 90s where difficult philosophy and just riffing on the logic of an idea got conflated. My 90's alternative high school english class taught by a cultural studies PhD assigned us BBS t-files and we got a lot of stuff like this. It was like philosophy, but without rigor or competence, and when…
100%
The initial gambit is to make the reader part of a clever in-group by out-grouping “zombies”, then the writer proceeds to quickly gish-gosh a bunch of concepts that would require lots of further thought, but instead expects the reader to just go with it. You can get anywhere if you just go with it
Edit: But I do like JL on other subjects. I think it just proves the point that Plato made in the Defence of Socrates
I suspect my own comments on this site will probably age just as goatily. There was something that happened in the late 80s and 90s where difficult philosophy and just riffing on the logic of an idea got conflated. My 90's alternative high school english class taught by a cultural studies PhD assigned us BBS t-files and we got a lot of stuff like this. It was like philosophy, but without rigor or competence, and when…
If I understand correctly what the author is trying to say, I think that theoretical physicist Sean Carrol communicates similar kinds of ideas with a much greater eloquence. A recommended watching, "Poetic Naturalism": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv0mKsO2goA But then again, maybe I'm just "riffing on" with them.
I suspect my own comments on this site will probably age just as goatily. There was something that happened in the late 80s and 90s where difficult philosophy and just riffing on the logic of an idea got conflated. My 90's alternative high school english class taught by a cultural studies PhD assigned us BBS t-files and we got a lot of stuff like this. It was like philosophy, but without rigor or competence, and when…
I don't think the author is totally lost in the woods, but I agree that his writing is unnecessarily unclear. I think that most of the "goatiness" comes from his choice in writing to mockingly call physicalist/reductionist types that disregard the experience of qualia or think of it as a non-problem, as "zombies", and people that think that the problem of qualia must be taken seriously as "zagnets", which unnecessari…
I suspect my own comments on this site will probably age just as goatily. There was something that happened in the late 80s and 90s where difficult philosophy and just riffing on the logic of an idea got conflated. My 90's alternative high school english class taught by a cultural studies PhD assigned us BBS t-files and we got a lot of stuff like this. It was like philosophy, but without rigor or competence, and when…
Woah
[deleted]