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.

▲

stared 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

burnished 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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

	▲	te7447 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Try xcancel: https://xcancel.com/pmigdal/status/2064837039552409763

▲

JackFr 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Bats

▲

emp17344 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

throw4847285 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

	▲	30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

rdevilla 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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

	▲	nkurz 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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.