New answers tagged

0

I see the two enterprises as approaching overlapping terrain from different directions. Those in the "naturalization of intentionality" camp want to build up to meaning (or intentional or representational content) from more basic concepts of biology and engineering (the concepts of what Dennett calls "the design stance") like "...


0

Different levels of intelligence do not coincide with different levels of consciousness. To clarify some terms: Speaking of "levels" implies that you're distinguishing greater and lesser degrees of some property, and drawing lines at certain intervals across that spectrum of degrees. "Intelligence" is the capacity to process information; ...


0

It has been said that if the true nature of the world were explained to us, we would be like a dog watching a relativity lecture by Einstein. Is this true? "Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone" -The Evolution of Physics, by Albert Einstein & ...


0

In the interpretation of Brouwer-Heyting-Kolmogorov, we are concerned about whether a sentence has proof or not. Not whether a sentence is true or not. Focus is proof, robust evidence that something counts. Much more sensible, in my view


0

He is asking about, would you be conscious if you never experienced any senses. I was looking at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FJWvEbeBps and asking myself the same question which led me to this thread. Maybe you can not reach consciousness if you are born senseless. It is not, in my opinion, about the scope of consciousness but rather the importance of ...


0

I just want to add to Philip Klocking the link I posted wasn't an "It's in there" link. "I highly suggest watching this to broaden your awareness of EARLY simulation theory theories" Yes, it's 2 hours. An extremely valuable 2 hours for anyone genuinely interested in simulation theory, including the philosophy behind it. It's an entire ...


0

Well. Thomas Breuer had shown that for any observer the system which properly includes themselves has different physical properties (and is not predictable) due to self-reference. This is a mathematical result. This means, that from the point of view of any observer, all others with whom he can interact are predictable (probabiblistically or ...


Top 50 recent answers are included