Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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.



Wanted to talk about it with Claude Fable 5... and it flagged the conversation (https://x.com/pmigdal/status/2064837039552409763).

Sure, cybersecurity and biology are dangerous topics. Turns out, so is philosophy of mind.


Those of us without twitter accounts can't see those links btw!


Try xcancel: https://xcancel.com/pmigdal/status/2064837039552409763


Bats


If you think you can outright reject one of the most famous arguments in philosophy of mind with a semantic quibble, you should think again.


I don't think you understood the paper, to be honest.


I'd love to respond, but I am shadowbanned.


Assuming 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.


Try 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.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: