Consciousness: A guided expedition into the foundations of existence | Hacker News Reader

Consciousness: A guided expedition into the foundations of existence

monomo.io

3 pointsvajdagabor8 comments

I felt like something is off, so I checked.

Copyleaks AI detector says this is written by AI. https://copyleaks.com/ai-content-detector

Grammarly says 42% of this text appears to be AI-generated

Hi, I'm the author. I'm not a native speaker, so I used chatGPT a lot for editing and finding the right formulation of the sentences. All of the ideas and thoughts are original neverthless. I have worked on this writing for more than 3 months. Unfortunately I don't feel the nuances in the writing yet, like a native speaker would.

Can you please show me a few examples where the text feels like something is off?

It's just general flow of the text. I don't know how to analyze it better.

Thank you for the feedback, this is already very useful! I will try to improve the flow and style, but that will take some time (or a human editor). I hope you’ll still find the content interesting.

Unfortunately the content is not interesting for me. Try to see the context where it fits into. The internet is full of essays where person after long period of thinking writes down explanation of consciousness with very authoritative style. This is it, this is what it means.

The insights at end seem like standard new age terror management jargon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory

No, not terror management, and not new age either. This is a modern idealist approach, based on rigorous logic. The insights listed at the end of the treatise might not be convincing on their own, but the writing explains everything step by step. It offers proofs (in the form of logic), but each step needs careful thought to really get the insights that follow.

With fuzzy terminology logic is meaningless. That's why philosophy puts so much importance in defining concepts rigorously. If you base your theory into some existing views provide sources and put it into context.Like "This is my personal interpretation that takes idealistic viewpoint."

Individual thinking aloud is not as interesting as contrasting and comparing.

I don't think we can have a meaningful conversation about a philosophical work you haven’t read. If there’s something specific in this framework you disagree with, please tell me what it is and why. Let me know which terminology you find unclear and why, and where you think my logic fails.

I avoided basing my work on existing philosophies for a reason. Existence and the mind are highly debated topics with many unresolved problems and a lot of confusing ideas. I wanted to understand reality from the ground up—not just to learn what other philosophers thought. I find this approach more effective and reliable, and it led to an understanding that feels coherent, solid, and logical. I believe this model solves at least one or two major problems of philosophy and science, while reflecting reality better than the mainstream model.

This writing is my attempt to share this system in a way that doesn’t require a background in academic philosophy, only the presence of one’s own mind and intellect. We can’t prove anything by pointing to Descartes, Hegel, or Heidegger. These philosophers are known because they used their own minds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com