I dislike advertising as much as the next guy but wouldn't go so far as making it illegal

> What I mean here is that art did not serve to express a humanity that already existed. Rather, it acted as the mirror we needed to catch sight of our own image in the flux of nature. The question of when humans invented art leads us to imagine early humans much like ourselves, deciding one day to express themselves through symbols and figures. The assumption hidden in the question is that they already had minds like ours and simply chose, out of all the things they might have done on a frigid day in the Ice Age, to pick up ochre and make animal pictures. But the evidence, it seems to me, points the other way: it was the practice of making images, repeated over hundreds of generations, that occasioned the emergence of those minds we take for granted. We are putting the cart before the horse when we understand ourselves as the source of sense and meaning. In reality, we are participants in something that exceeds us, and the aesthetic, poetic dimension of great art reconnects us with that excess as a matter of course.

It's interesting to think about iterating over "drawing pictures of animals" before starting to "draw pictures of humans"

I'd personally recommend a dual masters in STEM and MBA--if possible for OP and they want to become heavily "educated" in ways similar to PhD.

I generally think people should pursue PhD only if they are strongly interested in research or want to stay in academia

A good case study may be the octopus. They are highly intelligent organisms and a strong argument could be made they have "mind". A quick search [0] shows some evidence they communicate via "posturing and changing color"--is this language? How does one prove an individual has mind?

Regarding the definition of "mind" the mirror test seems very relevant but does "mind exist without the sense of self"? What about emergent phenomena amongst highly social animal groupings...?

Edit: I must be in the "mind" came first camp but in this case mind === consciousness but mind != consciousness

[0] https://www.livescience.com/53514-octopuses-lead-social-live...

> sell our AI stocks... and pop the AI bubble

Not sure it works that way, unfortunately. e.g. index funds

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49301044

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Haven't read any of their articles in maybe almost a decade (in aggregate they seem so whimsical with fantastical titles) but am bored enough so far today at the 9to5 to where it is an exceedingly great option.

I still agree with Author and am not a big LLM/AI guy but article sort of has extreme all-or-nothing vibes which is odd to me.

On a separate note I think the author's bio is a bit pretentious

It's just a label on a box to put people in. I don't really know what "science" or "engineering" is anymore--my SO is a neuroscience phd and has maintained "science is not synonymous with the scientific method; a lot of 'research' science is just collecting and publishing data and it does not need to be reproducible" which makes enough sense but challenges a lot of my priors.

Engineers don't traditionally even "build" anything and there are both upper-case and lower-case engineers in title and legal designation.

Comparatively and in sum the distinction between computer scientist and programmer is actually somewhat simple and quaint.