5 ms·
The paper “Objects of consciousness” by Donald D. Hoffman[0][1] is an interesting read—if only for its attempt to build a formal model of consciousness and defi
by goblin89 10y ago
The paper “Objects of consciousness” by Donald D. Hoffman[0][1] is an interesting read—if only for its attempt to build a formal model of consciousness and define what it means to “observe”, in the quantum sense.
[0] http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577/full http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00...
[1] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9829085 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9829085
- hprotagonist 10y agoIt's so cute when neuroscientists try to be philosophers. They're so poorly cut out for the job. (He needs to read more Husserl.)
- redial 10y agoThey said the same thing of physicist, biologists, geologists, chemists, etc. before, that is until they found themselves irrelevant. I suspect in time, it will happen again.
- hprotagonist 10y agowhich they is this?
- throwanem 10y agoPhilosophers, I think. But the field as a whole seems to treat relevance as an afterthought.
- hprotagonist 10y agoin part this is because whenever something relevant comes up, it gets a name that is not philosophy. Also because we're still shaking off perception of philosophers as useless navel-gazing victorians; post WWI, the field has become substantially more akin to formal math and logic.
- woodandsteel 10y agoI second the vote for Husserl. Merleau-Ponty could help, too.