The conceptual problem that I see, is mapping a '3rd person' description of a brain to 1st person subjective experience. There is no such mapping?
-
-
I don’t think that the functional implementation of the mind and the conscious self exist in the same frame of reference. From the perspective of the self, phenomenal experience is primary, outside of it, there is no experience. The self is a story, the mind a story generator.
3 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
That’s my thinking as well - all of the nuances of our SE is a separate issue best left to philosophers. The relevant fact is that SE is an elaboration of organismic affect. Physiological affect is real. It exists and can be measured. SE exists and can be measured.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
You cannot leave anything to philosophers. At best, they are busy solving problems caused by other philosophers.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Ha! A scientist saying this is entirely analogous to a driver saying, “you cannot leave anything to mechanics, at best they're busy solving problems caused by other mechanics”
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Sorry for coming off as flippant. I think that most low hanging fruits in philosophy have been reaped long ago, and most of the present debates take place within very field specific contexts. In this sense philosophy is perhaps not different from math.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It made me smile :-) I think parts of philosophy grow up & leave home. e.g. “Natural Philosophy” & Psychology. The parts not empirically decidable never do. I see great value in philosophy as an effort to notice what we otherwise assume without question.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I am frustrated with the state of some academic philosophy though. The willingness to engage in hard topics without deep formal understanding, the mixed intellectual quality of discourse, the pretense, and the ease by which the community is captured by ideologies indicate crisis.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
So I've got to ask, even if you avoid naming names, what areas or schools or approaches to philosophy annoy you? In PhilMind I think that Dennett Frankish Strawson Goff & others make a fair attempt to keep abreast of science.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I agree, they are quite firmly in the "not wrong" category. For instance, I enjoy reading Dennett, but I think that his accomplishments are mostly rebukes of the conceptual or argumentative missteps of other philosophers, while missing the question that these tried to address.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I don't think that the mainstream of contemporary philosophy of mind is keeping abreast of Kant, Wittgenstein and Turing and the implications of mathematical constructivism. Enactivism is a metaphysical abomination, despite its pragmatic potential.
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.