Great interview! Scattered thoughts:
1) @_awbery_ 's speech is really pleasant to listen to :) there's a slight drawing-out of words, that gives their speech a thoughtful and controlled vibe
-
-
2) was a little surprised by how positively and extensively
@_awbery_ talks about TMI, given that their blog posts and other comments have sounded a little critical2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
3) re: subminds, there were some mentions of Minsky/Culadasa assuming some "master submind" which is in control. Was a little confused by that, since a prominent theme for both is that there is no such special submind or homunculus, and that it's all decision-making by committee.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @xuenay @OortCloudAtlas
Yes, iirc that was Michael’s descrption of Minsky’s concept (which I think is accurate, though I’m not an expert), which Culadasa has adapted. 1/2
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Problem is that the homunculus is still there logically - if subminds are taken as accurate representation of how the brain works. One can simply declare that it isn’t, and proceed with theory based on fiat. That might be fruitful, and seems to be so for many.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes this is another version of the “billions of tiny spooks” problem. As usual no one has done a good explanation of this for a general audience, although it’s well-understood in philosophy of mind. Why do I always have to do all the translational work?https://meaningness.com/representational-theory-of-mind …
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
There's a lot about your description of representationallism that doesn't really resonate with how I think of representationalism. Thus, I'm probably thinking about it somewhat (or maybe a lot) incorrectly. Hence the need for a discussion.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
One of the reasons this is difficult to discuss is that the key terms/concepts (like “mind” and “representation”) are taken for granted as making sense, but they have no coherent definitions. So it’s really easy to talk past each other without noticing.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @OortCloudAtlas and
As a serious philosophical project, representational imploded around 1990, when the major players were all forced to admit they had no specific-enough understanding of what “representation” means, or any explanation for how representations could do the work they’d need to.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @OortCloudAtlas and
The problem is that the implosion was so discouraging that no one bothered to explain exactly what the impasse was (although I think there was pretty much a shared understanding of it at the time). And, although there was an alternative available, the details never got worked out
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes
This is dense, but it’s a summary of the history of the implosion. Note that nearly everything it discusses (apart from Millikan’s work) ends around 1990, although the article was first written in 2003 and revised this year. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/#InteNatu …
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @OortCloudAtlas and
(Ruth Millikan has a theory of the meaning of biological function that is interesting, but most people agree it’s irrelevant to the intentionality/representationalism/computationalism debate.)
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.