Philosophers said the paper’s argument is sound, but that “all these arguments have been presented years and years ago.”
Old news about the same old grift.
This was evident to anyone who saw the original research papers years (a decade now?) back.
But it is powerful enough to fool the masses and that’s why this is being pursued. It’s the most powerful mass manipulation tech, way better than Facebook feeds with Cambridge Analytica.
Don’t forget we were burning witches not 200 years ago, and thought the earth is flat a few thousand earlier.
The vast majority of the population not being philosophers or biologists is the real reason the hype is still on, and will be for quite some time.
thought the earth is flat a few thousand earlier
We didn’t. Which is an even better illustration to the point you’re making.
People still think the earth is flat and people still burn witches. Which, as you say, is exactly the point here. People are fucking stupid and they always have been.
Plenty still think it’s flat now so I’d allow it regardless, but most sources suggest <3000 years of people believing this, much less having the math or physics to back it up.
I’d say it’s more of a small group that cling to a flat earth idea for whatever reason (it started as a joke), while another small group can argue the physics and evidence to show it’s round. Most everyone else is somewhere in the middle, not even really thinking about the question at all. Which is how most people have always been about a lot of things, not concerned about something that doesn’t affect them.
Attention is all you need…
“I think he [Lerchner][author of paper] arrived at this conclusion on his own and he’s reinvented the wheel and he’s not well read, especially in philosophical areas and definitely not in biology,” Johannes Jäger, an evolutionary systems biologist and philosopher, told me.
brutal
deleted by creator
sorry, all i have are these Pudgy Penguins
This “paper” reeks of AI.
I’ve never read a sane human write a sentence like “Forming an abstraction is not free. It is an active, metabolically expensive physical process of extracting invariants.” And then the entire thing reads like a fever dream. From philosophy to logic to thermodynamics, then some weird(?) examples how a human heart isn’t the same thing as a mechanical heart, to ontology terminology again. Not sure if that’s how some niche philosophy papers are supposed to be like. But I’m calling bullshit on this. Someone needs to use an AI detector on it.
Edit: I didn’t find much info while googling for the paper. There’s a rebuttal. But that one is disclosed to be written to some unknown degree by ChatGPT and Claude.
i think you need more drugs. like not just dosage but types of drugs. this looks like one of those where if you aren’t fearing ego death when you read it i don’t think you can understand it.
Is that the gold standard? Prescribe psychedelics and cross the threshold towards epistemology?
I think I run 70% on coffee, 30% on sugar, 2% on alcohol, 16% on being a contrarian on the internet. But I might still be in dire need of the drug that makes me realize whether material existence is continuous or discrete… I mean my small brain thought that’s still an open question. And seems the author knows the answer to it. The entire essay foots on that very postulation. And I really must have missed something because they don’t even cite a reference for it. Was it settled in the 1960 in some of the referenced philosophy books? Or is it like …just drugs?
No shit Sherlock. People with more than 2 brain cells used for thinks other than focusing on breathing knew that from the get-go, without needing a paper to analyze it. Dumb fucks…
That’s OK, from what I can tell the AI bros arent conscious either
I’ll go ahead and like this one under “Yeah, no shit.”
