3 ms·
Very unsatisfactory discussion. Just a weird soup of all the current theoretical philosophical and neuroscientific models… with no ‘inevitable’ about any of it.
by throwaway2562 2y ago
Very unsatisfactory discussion. Just a weird soup of all the current theoretical philosophical and neuroscientific models… with no ‘inevitable’ about any of it.
If I’m missing something important here, let me know.
- nonrandomstring 2y agoI was hoping for something mind-blowing that synthesised Godel, Whitehead and Church-Turing into a startling, elegant knock-down proof of computational consciousness. I braced myself ready to be moved.... It contains no definition of consciousness, no substantial mathematics and no compelling argument for the possibility of consciousness (let alone its inevitability - which the PDF paper repeatedly emphasises in bold). It is also difficult to read because it is tediously footnoted such that the actual prose occupies a minority of each page. I think they just wanted to use the word inevitable a lot. Is that a "high impact" term in academia these days?
- zcw100 2y agoIf it's so inevitable why has nature only managed to do it once? (I'm leaving the dolphins and mice out of this discussion. --HGG)