I’ve posted an audio monolog prompted by @evantthompson’s comment, recorded by @_awbery_. Most of it is not directly responsive, although we did get to the point at the end. The accompanying text notes may be more relevant.
Comments welcome!https://meaningness.com/metablog/buddhism-cognitivism-podcast …
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @SpeakingSubject and
Maybe I missed it, but you referred a lot to how representationalism doesn't work, but not to *why* it doesn't work. A good summary somewhere?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @OortCloudAtlas @SpeakingSubject and
If you are up for reading a book, the “show notes” point at several that are squarely about this. Varela,
@evantthompson, & Rosch’s is probably the most readable! There’s lots of ways of coming at this, and it’s hard to write up in less than a book and more than a phrase.2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @OortCloudAtlas and
In a phrase: what physical properties could a thing-in-your-head have that would make it represent the fact that Ouagadougou is the capital of Burkina Faso?
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @OortCloudAtlas and
By 1990 it became apparent that no answer to that was possible, even in principle. Once you bite that bullet, the whole cognitivist project collapses.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @OortCloudAtlas and
Then you can start to think about alternatives. There’s lots of appealing starting points, but so far none of them have led to a generative research program that can regularly crank out concrete substantive results. No “normal science” yet; it’s “pre-paradigm” in Kuhn’s terms.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @OortCloudAtlas and
Somewhat relatedly: I find Culadasa’s appeals to cognitive science and/or neuroscience unconvincing and potentially misleading. Very short on details/footnotes; it seems to be a vague rehash of mainly 1980s-era stuff that has been discredited for decades.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @OortCloudAtlas and
What do you have in mind in particular?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SpeakingSubject @OortCloudAtlas and
Well… a proper analysis would be a long post and would be interpreted as a nasty attack on a nice person. But, for example, >
5 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @SpeakingSubject and
Does it have to be though? I think it's essential these things get hashed out in public. We all learn as a result. Wrong ideas are wrong matter whose nice head they reside in.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
Is debunking pop Buddhism a project worth attempting at all? If so, where best to concentrate effort? Its whole modus operandi is to make stuff up and say “According to The Buddha,...”
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @Sciamanoinglese and
Culadasa makes stuff up and says “According to neuroscience,...” Is that more dangerous? Does it matter? (Real questions, not rhetorical.)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @Sciamanoinglese and
Maybe since Buddhism is out and mindfulness is in, and mindfulness cites imaginary neuroscience instead of imaginary scripture, that’s where effort should go. I don’t have the patience for it personally.
0 replies 1 retweet 3 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.