I absolutely love this. I don't think it's correct but I don't think I've actually read any philosophical thought where the philosopher wasn't wholly and completely up their own ass. It's written...
I absolutely love this. I don't think it's correct but I don't think I've actually read any philosophical thought where the philosopher wasn't wholly and completely up their own ass. It's written understandably and makes a good argument.
However we cannot know or many much of an argument about the United States. It definitly shares characteristics of an organism. Even sophisticated organisms, but from my perspective that isn't enough.
Consciousness in my view is a specific high level process that we don't fully understand. Until we do understand it in ourselves we're only guessing when talking about rabbits, supersquids or the United States.
Until we know what we're looking for we are only making guesses through proxies like pain, homeostasis, and behavior. But going even further and saying conscious beings can be built of other conscious beings is even more complicated. So I end up saying we simply cannot come close to understanding if the United States is Conscious until we understand more about the underlying process.
Really? Here's a few recommendations: Descartes, Meditations on 1st Philosophy Nagle, What is it like to be a bat? Chalmers, The Extended Mind (a favourite of mine) Singer, Animal Liberation...
but I don't think I've actually read any philosophical thought where the philosopher wasn't wholly and completely up their own ass.
Really? Here's a few recommendations:
Descartes, Meditations on 1st Philosophy
Nagle, What is it like to be a bat?
Chalmers, The Extended Mind (a favourite of mine)
Singer, Animal Liberation
Actually, given that most 'undergraduate level' philosophy is pretty approachable and 'down to earth', it's actually harder to read philosophy and find the pretentious stuff. What philosophy are you typically reading?
Or maybe the United States has a consciousness that's more like an amoeba than a rabbit? We know so little about what constitutes consciousness that I don't think there any conclusions we can draw.
Or maybe the United States has a consciousness that's more like an amoeba than a rabbit? We know so little about what constitutes consciousness that I don't think there any conclusions we can draw.
Sounds like a nice guy. I have to agree with this though: I was pretty bored during the supersquids and the antheads bit. I agree that similarities between organisms and groups can be traced, but...
Sounds like a nice guy. I have to agree with this though:
Alternatively, some readers – perhaps especially empirically-oriented readers – might suggest that my argument does little other than display the bankruptcy of metaphysical speculation about bizarre cases. How could we hope to build any serious theory on science-fictional intuitions?
I was pretty bored during the supersquids and the antheads bit.
I agree that similarities between organisms and groups can be traced, but as he asks at the end: Is then a company conscious? Is a family or a household conscious?
I really like Thomas Metzinger's idea about the self-model and wish it was mentioned at some point in the article. If there is no self-model, and I don't think a country or a group of people has one, there's no first person perspective either and no consciousness.
At times I even thought he was somehow trying to redefine consciousness. It might be a valid path, but as one of his critics mentioned, seems misleading.
Great article, does a very good job of presenting good critiques of mainstream materialism. As an eliminativist, I have to rep this paper. Their citation list also contains basically every great...
Great article, does a very good job of presenting good critiques of mainstream materialism. As an eliminativist, I have to rep this paper.
Their citation list also contains basically every great philosopher of mind there is
I absolutely love this. I don't think it's correct but I don't think I've actually read any philosophical thought where the philosopher wasn't wholly and completely up their own ass. It's written understandably and makes a good argument.
However we cannot know or many much of an argument about the United States. It definitly shares characteristics of an organism. Even sophisticated organisms, but from my perspective that isn't enough.
Consciousness in my view is a specific high level process that we don't fully understand. Until we do understand it in ourselves we're only guessing when talking about rabbits, supersquids or the United States.
Until we know what we're looking for we are only making guesses through proxies like pain, homeostasis, and behavior. But going even further and saying conscious beings can be built of other conscious beings is even more complicated. So I end up saying we simply cannot come close to understanding if the United States is Conscious until we understand more about the underlying process.
Really? Here's a few recommendations:
Actually, given that most 'undergraduate level' philosophy is pretty approachable and 'down to earth', it's actually harder to read philosophy and find the pretentious stuff. What philosophy are you typically reading?
Or maybe the United States has a consciousness that's more like an amoeba than a rabbit? We know so little about what constitutes consciousness that I don't think there any conclusions we can draw.
Sounds like a nice guy. I have to agree with this though:
I was pretty bored during the supersquids and the antheads bit.
I agree that similarities between organisms and groups can be traced, but as he asks at the end: Is then a company conscious? Is a family or a household conscious?
I really like Thomas Metzinger's idea about the self-model and wish it was mentioned at some point in the article. If there is no self-model, and I don't think a country or a group of people has one, there's no first person perspective either and no consciousness.
At times I even thought he was somehow trying to redefine consciousness. It might be a valid path, but as one of his critics mentioned, seems misleading.
Interesting read though. Thanks!
Great article, does a very good job of presenting good critiques of mainstream materialism. As an eliminativist, I have to rep this paper.
Their citation list also contains basically every great philosopher of mind there is
I'm no expert, but to be honest the fact that it doesn't cite Metzinger at all seems strange.