This paper doesn't seem to have much to do with post-modernism at all; it strikes me as much more in line with modern analytic philosophy.
Nor does it make any claims about the nature of intelligence, for that matter.
Did you even read the abstract?
Nor does it make any claims about the nature of intelligence, for that matter.
Did you even read the abstract?
Also, the last 'representant' was Baudrillard, and he died in the early 2000s, probably a bit sad that 'Matrix' misrepresented his philosophy so much. Baudrillard never worked on consciousness, but if he did, I think he would be a materialist (an illusionist probably. At least reading his books made me one, and hopefully I didn't misunderstood him).
This paper doesn't look like continental philosophy at all though, so I don't understand why postmodernism comes up.
My point exactly.
Bertrand Russell made the great point a very long time ago.
Most of what we think of as “truth” is merely what we agree to among ourselves (my paraphrase.)
Couched in a generation that subtly rejects objectivity of truths in their “investigations of science” there are these meandering conjectures of poor disguise.
You’re impressed. Fine.
The read is like a hypotonic act. First if a then alphabunny. And then yes to zetahumanity, and United Stated for keyword associativity.
Okay folks, like what you like.
I take my ideas seriously, and this is rubbish! I blame the lack of vigorous debate, not the lack of “choices.”