4 ms·
I read this article since it was referred to often in philosophy of mind, including by Daniel Dennett in "Consciousness Explained". Yet... while I expected som
by stared 4mo ago
I read this article since it was referred to often in philosophy of mind, including by Daniel Dennett in "Consciousness Explained".
Yet... while I expected some deeper dive into Umwelts, I got (in my experience) a tautology around the word "be". Which, IMHO, should be tabooed in all serious philosophical discussion, as "be" is the mother of word-lockpicks. Vide E-Prime, English without "be", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime.
- emp17344 4mo agoIf you think you can outright reject one of the most famous arguments in philosophy of mind with a semantic quibble, you should think again.
- throw4847285 4mo agoI don't think you understood the paper, to be honest.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- stared 4mo agoWanted to talk about it with Claude Fable 5... and it flagged the conversation (https://x.com/pmigdal/status/2064837039552409763 https://x.com/pmigdal/status/2064837039552409763). Sure, cybersecurity and biology are dangerous topics. Turns out, so is philosophy of mind.
- rdevilla 4mo agoI'd love to respond, but I am shadowbanned.
- nkurz 4mo agoAssuming you are planning to continue participating anyway, you should just respond. Presuming it's a good response, with a bit of luck someone will vouch for it and make it visible.
- hackinthebochs 4mo agoTry sending an email to their contact address (bottom of page). Unless there's a good reason your comments are being auto killed, they will fix it.