![]() Your suggested view here - that we need further evidence for all claims - leads to a well-known regress problem: Ĭonsciousness is exactly the kind of phenomenon that would be known immediately through experience, on the form of foundationalism sketched above. The received view in epistemology from Descartes through Russell was a form of foundationalism on which all our beliefs are divided into two kinds - inferential and non-inferential - where the former are based on the latter, and the latter are not justified by anything else, because they are either self-evident or known immediately through experience. It’s not really acceptable philosophy because philosophy is at it’s heart a field that demands we justify and show evidence for all our claims. I hope that doesn’t come across too critical, but I think they’re important points to consider. I also feel your acceptance of circular logic is going against one of the most important and well known fallacies. For me that’s not just the wrong argument, it’s not really acceptable philosophy because philosophy is at it’s heart a field that demands we justify and show evidence for all our claims. You’re telling me consciousness is obvious and literally doesn’t need explaining. I do kind of feel like your comments are a perfect illustration of my exact point – consciousness being treated unsceptically and accepted without the need for a precise definition or logical justification. “but you get the drift.” … “Some things do explaining and others stand in need of explaining consciousness is the latter.” I mean I get that feeling you mean, but the point of the article is that we might be interpreting this feeling with fallacious logic. I’ve tried to supply logic and evidence to say the concept may be a bit wonky. I think you need to provide supporting evidence or logic for this claim. “it’s a fundamental part of our experience” There are still lots of excellent studies in favor, they just have to be interpreted in the context of other things. I do not endorse claims that I have “debunked” growth mindset or that it is “stupid”. I want to clarify that when I discuss growth mindset, the strongest conclusion I can come to is that it’s not on as firm ground as some people seem to think. Did any of you leave around February 20th for some reason and not check the blog again until today? Did anything happen February 20th that tempted you to leave and you only barely hung on? I get self-esteem and occasionally money from blog hits, so this is kind of bothering me.Ĥ. I would assume maybe WordPress changed its method of calculating statistics around that time, but I can’t find any evidence of this on the WordPress webpage. And I’ve been back from vacation for a month and a half without anything getting better. Now, I did go on vacation starting February 20 and make fewer posts than normal during that time, but usually when I don’t post for a while I get a very gradual drop-off, whereas here, the day after a relatively popular post, everyone departs all of a sudden. In fact, I can pinpoint the specific day:īetween February 20th and February 21, I lost about a third of my blog readership, and they haven’t come back. Notice that the week of February 23rd it falls and has never recovered. I offer you a statistical mystery a little closer to home than the ones we usually investigate around here: how come my blog readership has collapsed? The week-by-week chart looks like this: Worthy members of the in-group who need financial help: CyborgButterflies (donate here) and as always the guy who runs CrazyMeds (donate by clicking the yellow DONATE button on the right side here)ģ. Comments of the week are Scott McGreal actually reading the supplement of that growth mindset study, and gwern responding to the cactus-person story in the most gwernish way possible.Ģ. Post about anything you want, ask random questions, whatever.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |