undefined | Better HN

0 pointsKim_Bruning2mo ago0 comments

Oh dear, just a short while after me saying I was confused by the term too.

Are you sure you're a <biological naturalist>? [1] Which is to say, do you adhere to Searle's position about syntax not leading to semantics?

Or is it more like: You're scientifically inclined, and thus you accept Ethology[2] or Neuroscience[3] as being empirically rigorous studies of animal behavior and cognition respectively?

Incidentally, Alan Turing's 1950 imitation game paper was actually pretty Ethological if you look it up. He immediately replaces the question "can machines think" with a more practical operationalization: the famous imitation game.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_naturalism

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethology

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computing_Machinery_and_Intell...

0 comments

2 comments · 2 top-level

LeCompteSftware2mo ago

I didn't say I was a formal biological naturalist according to Searle, I put myself in one of the four boxes the parent comment offered. Please read my comment in context.

Your response is too condescending to engage with. You should have assumed I know what neuroscience is. Please don't ever email me about anything.

2 more replies

Kim_BruningOP2mo ago

(ps. A quick search gives me the impression <biological naturalism> arguably rejects much of biology's findings on animal cognition. My mail is in my user description if you'd like me to dig up the relevant literature for you.)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse