leave consciousness to me

>>9032141
Sure thing sir, what have you got?

>I have given an extremely hand wavey description of neural function in the brain
>Therefore... consciousness is solved

>>9032141
what a pseud that guy is

Terrance Deacon is who actually knows whats up

>>9032333
>>9032333
That's what you get when a philosopher try to make a reflexion about science. Ends up making descriptions. Nothing else.

>>9033756
>2017
>believing in philosophers that are not also scientists
also anyone who is not a philosopher is also not a scientist worthy of the title
check out Charles Sanders Peirce to be quickly falsified

>>9032141
fuck off dennet
get cucked

>there are academics in 2017 who unironically believe they don't need to study science or math to be a good philosopher

>>9035532

Why would you study science and math when they're both just language games played for pragmatic reasons?

>>9035728
the study and the practice of math are not the same as the formal system of math, newfag

>>9035732
They weren't always, but they are now, in large part.

>>9035728
i like philosophy but philosophers that don't study science/math are just as bad as scientists that don't study philosophy

>>9035734
no
for the longest part, the formal system of math didn't even exist, while the practice of math produced very deep results
the practice of math is a completely different animal than a game of symbol manipulation

>>9035737
I like this better.
>>9035740
Interesting. What distinguishes the practice of math from the symbol manipulation? Also: what would be some good examples from each so that I can learn the difference?

>>9035753
>Interesting. What distinguishes the practice of math from the symbol manipulation? Also: what would be some good examples from each so that I can learn the difference?

https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf

>>9035757
Thank you.

>>9035757
a classic
>>9035753
formal symbol manipulation is the product, and not even that, trying to read a mathematical product (a paper, etc) line by line as if it were syntactically a formal proof is widely considered to be a beginner's way of reading, and will usually run into "syntax errors" which aren't very meaningful

saying math is a game of symbol manipulation is the same as saying a sand castle is a collection of grains of salt. it's literally true, but it's misleading. the difference is hard to tell when beginning, but it's very real and tangible in day-to-day practice.

here's an example, it might sound far-fetched but it's very usual. A and B are working on a theorem. A says "okay, I got it". he starts writing a syntactically correct proof on the board, a sequence of steps which follow from each other and are perfectly written. he finishes, and looks at B. B is a good mathematician, but he has no idea of what A just wrote. he can read the sentences one by one, but is confused by the argument. "explain it to me". A draws a blurry picture that looks like a toddler tried to draw some circles, and makes some fuzzy arrows and some dots. "so these things can't be too close together, right? because of how the space is. and so just push them around like this [weird hand gesture] and you eventually move closer to what you want". B understands the proof completely right away (even if he's still not sure about the sentences) and starts to write it in his own "language"


see also
https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/there%E2%80%99s-more-to-mathematics-than-rigour-and-proofs/

>>9035728
Because they teach you to think in whole new ways. Same reason people learn to speak, then to read and write.