Here are 10 philosophy articles I liked in 2020, in no particular order (a THREAD with links).

1: Do animals have a concept of death? @Susana_MonsO sets out what it takes to have a "minimal comprehension" of death and explains how we can test for it. https://t.co/08vgW2Hv2H
2: @aliboyle6 on conjoined twins and biological individuality: https://t.co/c5y2cQm6IE. AB had another excellent paper, on episodic memory, but I will allow only 1 paper per author.
3: Tim Bayne, @anilkseth and Marcello Massimini on "Islands of awareness" - this paper is terrifying, horror movie-esque. You'll see what I mean if you read it. If you dare. https://t.co/JFH1YGGnRK
4: Can we perceive goal-directedness? Joulia Smortchkova argues that we can, and gives a plausible account of how it works. https://t.co/rvr4vcw51S
5: Hanna Pickard on addiction and the self. To escape addiction, you have to imagine a new social identity for yourself - an identity other than "addict". A strikingly lovely paper that made me think of @newnoteorc, which puts this into practice. https://t.co/IYkUQOSvBf
6: "Virtue signalling is virtuous". I suspect a lot of what is called "virtue signalling" is in fact quorum sensing. It is saying: "I want to change the prevailing social norms on this issue - how many of us are there? Do we have a critical mass or not?" https://t.co/kp8HkA8bGO
7: Conscious states are ethically significant. If a strong illusionist view of consciousness is correct, a massive whole is blown in the core of ethics. The challenge of repairing the hole is one illusionists should take on (says Francois Kammerer). https://t.co/jmhqhpZzwX
8: @KatalinBalog on the "hardest" problem of consciousness (for materialists) - the problem of explaining how "phenomenal consciousness" could refer to a single, determinate physical property. https://t.co/DsSGBX33A6
9: @dioscuri on the "specificity problem". Popular theories of consciousness, such as global workspace theory, don't specify the properties they take to confer consciousness in enough detail to allow application of the theory to animals. That's a problem. https://t.co/sV939PwnGy
10: Saul Smilansky on replies. This paper points out a gap between how philosophy publishing works and how it should work - a gap that had been bothering me for a while. https://t.co/quGUSVr1ZU

More from Culture

One of the authors of the Policy Exchange report on academic free speech thinks it is "ridiculous" to expect him to accurately portray an incident at Cardiff University in his study, both in the reporting and in a question put to a student sample.


Here is the incident Kaufmann incorporated into his study, as told by a Cardiff professor who was there. As you can see, the incident involved the university intervening to *uphold* free speech principles:


Here is the first mention of the Greer at Cardiff incident in Kaufmann's report. It refers to the "concrete case" of the "no-platforming of Germaine Greer". Any reasonable reader would assume that refers to an incident of no-platforming instead of its opposite.


Here is the next mention of Greer in the report. The text asks whether the University "should have overruled protestors" and "stepped in...and guaranteed Greer the right to speak". Again the strong implication is that this did not happen and Greer was "no platformed".


The authors could easily have added a footnote at this point explaining what actually happened in Cardiff. They did not.

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.