| Not sure if I should continue to comment here. > I don't consider it a rigorous subject. Many universities offer undergrad, masters and phd level work in this subject. Could be helpful to know why you think it is not rigorous. > Do you have this understanding? Like I said, I have a beginner level interest in the subject, ie, I have taken a undergrad. level relevant course in psychology and one in philosophy of mind, and occasionally read related books. Maybe you do have a full explanatory theory of qualia, of other mind, transcendence of objects in perception, unification of consciousness, how consciousness leads to another, forming the concept of "I" in addition to "me", how to speak of contents of consciousness in their own right and so on. There's various thought experiments to highlight some of the basic problems that you have to go through, (ex: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/) If you you have a complete explanation of mind in physical term, please do share or write some papers on some journals so people can slow down on AIs and start building a mind. |
Do you consider the fact that universities offer philosophy courses proof of authenticity? Are religious studies proof of god?
I consider non-analytic philosophy non-rigorous on the basis that the tools of thought are subjective, emotive and rely on juggling poorly defined concepts with little empirical verification.
> Maybe you do have a full explanatory theory of
Nice try. But the burden isn't on me to clarify dubious concepts. Do you have a full theory of the holy trinity?
> highlight some of the basic problems
> so people can slow down on AIs and start building a mind
pure philosophy will not solve these problems. can you point me to a philosophy paper that has made any progress in "building a mind"? What is the philosophical method for interrogation an empirical phenomenon?