[Chris2048]

> 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 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?

[3498rtigcufk]

Philosophy is not some sort of church where everyone praise some emotionally agreed upon idea... You seems to be turning this into some sort of us vs. them game based on your faulty projections, so I hope to stop here. (Btw, If you are getting your ideas about philosophy from popular youtube channels like https://www.youtube.com/user/schooloflifechannel or https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdY... , maybe I can understand why you have such misunderstandings)

-----------

If you happen to be interested anytime, you can start with some very introductory resources I bothered to look up for you (most are video, they are easy to consume):

+ Donald Hoffman - computational theory of mind, someone closer to HN's demographic (https://youtu.be/cUhrK82seVY)

+ John Searl is good speaker so try his talk (https://youtu.be/rHKwIYsPXLg)

+ Some thought experiments (remember that thought experiments are not highlighters of issue, not complete arguments) https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLz0n_SjOttTdUVuUqefi6...

+ If you want to know what a complete technical work looks like, here's one I've been reading: http://a.co/2xF4PPB

+ Not agreed upon but a fun one to not include - about: what is philosophy: https://youtu.be/dp8aTYUrPi0

+ Science vs philosophy sort of video, slow but good discussion in there: https://youtu.be/9tH3AnYyAI8

+ http://a.co/i96KFPs

In the unlikely case that you become very interested, you can look up "Introduction to philosophy of mind syllabus" and go through the materials and/or books of your choice on the subject.

-----------

> What is the philosophical method for interrogation an empirical phenomenon

That would go into philosophy of science, which I have absolutely no familiarity with. I'm guessing, to a philosopher of science, 'empirical' isn't such a simple subject as recording something that scientist would call it. I did watch this very interesting video once about phil. of science: https://youtu.be/5ng-t0o7E-w

[Chris2048]

> You seems to be turning this into some sort of us vs. them game based on your faulty projections

Really, how so? you're the one assuming the authority of philosophy, not me. How are my projections 'faulty'? You just keep pivoting, and claiming there to be some counterpoint, somewhere, even though you can't seem to supply them yourself.

> you can start with some very introductory resources

No thanks, implicit to this move is the suggestion that I need to read "very introductory" material. I don't.

> That would go into philosophy of science, which I have absolutely no familiarity with

Then you have no basis for arguing with me?