Adam Files
banner
adamfiles.bsky.social
Adam Files
@adamfiles.bsky.social
8 followers 15 following 26 posts
Looking for a non-fiction literary agent. Philosophy: Epistemology and Consciousness
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Gödel showed that all formal system's will have true statements without proofs. Another formal system may have a proof for what the statement represents. And even then it doesn't show the limits of a system only that each system will have one. We cannot know what we cannot know.
@jessiemunton.bsky.social If whimsy strikes I think you'd like this. It supports your position that we visually perceive modal properties. Apologies for @ing you. I'm looking around for philosophers thinking along the same lines. If you do read it, I'd love your thoughts.
Thinking about this more. I think I can say this better. If you consider anything coming from outside a consciousness a "sensation". I don't think consciousness is possible without it. Consciousness only examining itself is a closed loop. Consciousness needs something to be conscious of.
IMO. Phenomenal C (subjectivity) creates the axioms for mapping reality. Access C uses those axioms to create maps. Agency is navigating. The first 2 are pointing to parts of the process. And they overlap. Agency is the result of the process, not really part of it. But definitions are fuzzy here.
I should have said "schmink" here
Putting aside what I'd consider cheating: Creating a thinker with a pre-stocked "library". It seems to me any thinking would require some sort of external stimuli. There may be a way around this, but I can't wrap my brain around it. Ha. The *extremely* hard problem of consciousness.
If a thinker can be created artificially, it won't necessarily think the way we do. But we may be able to prove it "thinks". It doesn't seem to me it would be any more of a stretch to call a received text prompt a "sensation".
I agree. Sort of. Sensory information is no different to the brain than other kinds of information. Sensation as we understand it is not necessary. But the thinking process cannot depend only on itself. And any method by which information is gleaned from what is extrinsic could be called a "sense".
Panpsychism isn't. 7% of philosophers find it a compelling theory. Dualism isn't. Something like 20% of philosophers accept it.
I've written a journal article. Followed formatting rules. Cited sources. But I'm sure I'm missing something necessary. Would any published philosopher be interested in giving notes? I know there's a lot of unfalsifiable theories about this. Mine is not.
#hardproblem #philosophy #philsky
I've written a Journal article, but have no affiliations with any academic institutions. Followed guidelines. Formatting. Citing sources. But I'm sure I must be missing something given my outsider's perspective. Are there any resources for getting corrections outside these institutions? #philosophy
"Useful" may not equal definitive "answer", but it's all we can get.
Science is rooted in philosophy. The philosophy of science is built on some accepted axioms that have proven useful. Philosophy could define consciousness in the same way it defined science. Imperfect, sure. Science never proves only settles. But useful.
And I don't think you can understand consciousness scientifically. In the same way we can't understand the threshold for alive scientifically
I'd agree. But the reason philosophical answers are important is that being alive is important to us for non-scientific reasons. If we engineer AI with no clear idea of what consciousness is- the engineering problem stumbles in to those others. And I'd argue conscious is more salient than alive.
Which isn't to say Philosophy can give us definite answers to definitional problems. But once some definitions are accepted the engineering solutions can begin.
If I'm understanding your subtext: I'd agree that some philos are in conflict with evidence. But there are places where science terminates and philosophy is required. What is alive? Once we accept a definition of alive science can say a lot. But defining a threshold is going to be reliant on philo
I think this might be like saying the origin of the species is an engineering problem. Sure. If we'd waited for data it would get us to evolution. But having an idea about what's going on first can get us to the data faster, and make that data more understandable when we get it.
I'd be willing to talk about ideas for creating interest. My ideas for interest creation are NOT dependent on the idea being so good people will be forced to pay attention.
Yeaaaaaaaah. That comports with my experience.
#philosophy #literaryagent #amquerying #litagent It seems like I need to already have an audience to get a non-fiction literary agent. Which makes sense. But my Bio section is unimpressive. Anyone willing to take a risk on a good idea?
I have the last piece of the puzzle. The thing that kills the quantitative. The thing that solidifies the qualitative. I was so worried when I read your abstract that you had beaten me to it. You are so spot on. Beat me to some of it. I have something I'm trimming. I would love to get your thoughts.