There are some diagrams; probably not critical. Not sure how much you’d learn from the book; it’s cogsci developments you lived through at the time I think?
Well, this was the main topic of philosophy of mind in the 80s, and I think it’s reasonably fair to say that it ended with everyone giving up and moving on. Dennet was one major player. The problems are hairy and not easily summarized.
-
-
The buzzword was “intentionality” in analytic philosophy and “the symbol-grounding problem” in AI. The “binding problem” was a related manifestation in connectionism. I’d suggest the SEP articles cited here? [Eggplant draft text]pic.twitter.com/qQoBMCroDV
-
“Intentionality” is just jargon for “aboutness.” The question is how can a physical thing-in-the-head be about something else. The usual analysis is that the bimetallic strip is *not* intentional because it’s too closely coupled causally. (Not everyone agrees on this point.)
- 12 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yeah, that's why I was asking if there was any book, ideally one that doesn't spend too much time explaining things I do understand in weird philosophical ways. Not too keen on reading Heidegger, and think I understand the high order bits of that anyway.
-
When an intellectual movement fails, usually everyone is too burned out and disgusted to write up what went wrong, which means that the lessons are not available to subsequent generations, who make the same mistakes again.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.