3 ms·
Are philosophers the most qualified to answer the question? To me it sounds like “there’s no consensus amongst botanists on P=NP”. I’d expect biologists/psychol
by pointlessone 3y ago
Are philosophers the most qualified to answer the question? To me it sounds like “there’s no consensus amongst botanists on P=NP”. I’d expect biologists/psychologists to have the most experience with the subject matter. And if we’re talking about quantum theory then maybe add some physicists.
- eynsham 3y agoThere is no substantial botanical literature on whether P=NP, and the early literature on it is hardly botanical in nature. There is a very substantial literature in philosophy of mind on consciousness, and many within the field are up to date on modern cogsci and psychology. Indeed, cogsci and philosophy quite fruitfully interact—as far as I can tell, with similar closeness to that of semantic theorists in linguistics and in philosophy. There are also philosophers of physics who are perfectly up to date with modern physics and quantum theory. I have not met any philosophers who were clearly up to date both with physics and psychology to the same level, but I expect some philosophers of physics have gone into philosophy of mind. Considerations at the level of your comment therefore point to taking philosophical work on consciousness seriously, which is not to say that the plurality view, so far as there is one, is correct.