3 ms·
No, but that's not the point. The fact that many of them are quoted or referenced suggests that their opinions are relevant, at least to Wikipedia editors. Most
by robbrown451 7y ago
No, but that's not the point. The fact that many of them are quoted or referenced suggests that their opinions are relevant, at least to Wikipedia editors. Most other articles on the subject continually reference neuroscience and neuroscientists.
Regardless, not everything fits into neat little boxes.
I would personally be more interested in the views of a neuroscientist on the matter, but then again I'd expect them to be likely to dismiss it as not being a problem at all. I'd also be interested in the views of someone who works with AI and the like.
Personally I think the problem will be "solved" as soon as we have sufficiently advanced conversational assistants and we just start assuming they are conscious because they seem like they are. I think having that sort of thing in our daily lives will dramatically change people's intuitive perspective on the issue.
- whatshisface 7y ago>I would personally be more interested in the views of a neuroscientist on the matter, Some neuroscientists having an interesting take on the election does not imply that elections are a neurological topic. Philosophy is open to contributions from amateurs.
- perl4ever 7y agoWhen and how did philosophy undergo professionalization? "Professionalization tends to result in establishing acceptable qualifications, one or more professional associations to recommend best practice and to oversee the conduct of members of the profession, and some degree of demarcation of the qualified from unqualified amateurs (that is, professional certification). It is also likely to create "occupational closure", closing the profession to entry from outsiders, amateurs and the unqualified."
- whatshisface 7y agoThat's a huge question, but I think it happened in the 20th century during the academic boom.