6 ms·

Again, these are just empty objections.

bondarchuk 3y ago
Why empty? I gave specific examples of arguments that are considered acceptable within contemporary philosophy of mind, that are so nonsensical I don't think we should use them as a barrier for giving your own thoughts on consciousness. Meanwhile you are objecting to anyone commenting on these things without linking to any specific comments or mentioning lines of argument that you object to, nor naming any specific theories you believe should be engaged with. So my objection is much less empty than yours. I've read quite intensely (for a layman, alright) into philosophy of mind over the years and I've come to believe there's not much to be gained from engaging with it, vs. presenting your ideas in a self-contained manner or with reference to neuroscience or AI theory.
- ryanklee 3y ago
  Calling something idiotic without details is an empty objection. Calling two of the most powerful thought experiments in philosophy of mind and consciousness idiotic without details is less than empty, it's ridiculous. My objection has nothing to do with "links". I am objecting to the method of acting as if there haven't been hundreds and hundreds of years of work on this subject. That's not an empty objection. It's pointing out that the method is wrong. Which is a substantive point. It doesn't have to be followed up with my own naive theory on the subject to be so.
  - bondarchuk 3y ago
    Chinese room -> systems reply. That should've settled it right then and there. For zombies, similarly straightforward objections exist. The problem is rather that people's capacity for logical thinking shuts down when consciousness is involved. I think not engaging with such obviously wrong arguments would be an improvement for even a random HNer's armchair musings.
    - akasakahakada 3y ago
      I would say that Chinese Room is just simply a subclass of recursive nonsense that solely rely on ignorance of emergent properties of substance. Likewise Chinese Roomer must never reject the idea that human means nothing because human's composite parts a.k.a atoms do not think or talk or being 'conscious'. But they can't reject. Because they must stand for the point that human is conscious. Simultaneously this bring to a contradictory. It is mind boggling why folks think it is valid argument.

Why empty? I gave specific examples of arguments that are considered acceptable within contemporary philosophy of mind, that are so nonsensical I don't think we should use them as a barrier for giving your own thoughts on consciousness. Meanwhile you are objecting to anyone commenting on these things without linking to any specific comments or mentioning lines of argument that you object to, nor naming any specific theories you believe should be engaged with. So my objection is much less empty than yours. I've read quite intensely (for a layman, alright) into philosophy of mind over the years and I've come to believe there's not much to be gained from engaging with it, vs. presenting your ideas in a self-contained manner or with reference to neuroscience or AI theory.

ryanklee 3y ago
Calling something idiotic without details is an empty objection. Calling two of the most powerful thought experiments in philosophy of mind and consciousness idiotic without details is less than empty, it's ridiculous. My objection has nothing to do with "links". I am objecting to the method of acting as if there haven't been hundreds and hundreds of years of work on this subject. That's not an empty objection. It's pointing out that the method is wrong. Which is a substantive point. It doesn't have to be followed up with my own naive theory on the subject to be so.
- bondarchuk 3y ago
  Chinese room -> systems reply. That should've settled it right then and there. For zombies, similarly straightforward objections exist. The problem is rather that people's capacity for logical thinking shuts down when consciousness is involved. I think not engaging with such obviously wrong arguments would be an improvement for even a random HNer's armchair musings.
  - akasakahakada 3y ago
    I would say that Chinese Room is just simply a subclass of recursive nonsense that solely rely on ignorance of emergent properties of substance. Likewise Chinese Roomer must never reject the idea that human means nothing because human's composite parts a.k.a atoms do not think or talk or being 'conscious'. But they can't reject. Because they must stand for the point that human is conscious. Simultaneously this bring to a contradictory. It is mind boggling why folks think it is valid argument.