Profound debate, also excellent fun, about the most difficult, important question in the philosophy of mind. My two favorite cognitive scientists, Brian Cantwell Smith and @vervaeke_john, arguing opposite sides
h/t @JakeOrthweinhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lpu7766Rlks&feature=youtu.be …
-
Show this thread
-
John argues fundamental cognitive processes simply can’t ground in representation; one reason is the combinatorial explosion of potentially relevant factors. An alternative embodied/interactive account resolves this error. I’ve taken this line since 1986: https://meaningness.com/metablog/abstract-emergent#footnote2_h91xjou …pic.twitter.com/rPRsyeOZKU
2 replies 2 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
John also invokes the phenomenon of “pure consciousness” in meditation, in which you are (intensely) conscious, but not conscious *of* anything. Representations are generally taken to be necessarily *of* something, so it would seem this is consciousness without representation.
3 replies 2 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
Brian’s central point is that we can think about (and be conscious of?) concerns we’re not currently causally connected to; so an interactivist, causal theory cannot be fully adequate. Which is importantly true! So how do we do that? Representation, says Brian…
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
But, we know the representationalist story can’t work, for a host of reasons, each individually fatal—as Brian acknowledges. Some other account of representation is required; he’s devoted decades to working one out. I’m not sure I understand it; I tend to doubt it works, but…
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Brian’s theory of representation is sufficiently radical that it requires fundamental rethinking of the nature of computation; and here I think he’s right. Semi-relevantly, from my 1986 paper with Phil Agre: https://meaningness.com/metablog/abstract-emergent …pic.twitter.com/uKq4Nt5l4o
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
Around the middle of the video, John and Brian find that they are in violent agreement on many substantive points, where both strongly disagree with traditional cognitivism. Here I am in strong agreement with both of them (and reiterate my customary disdain for mainstream cogsci)
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
They end by agreeing that much of the difficulty is in the nebulosity of both “consciousness” and “representation.” It’s tempting to dismiss the issues as hopelessly vague. But important; so their hashing out conflicting understandings is valuable (and fascinating!).
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
Thanks for this. Was quite tempted to Electric Monk this but am listening. Trying to connect this to my dislike of the concept of 'mental models' which contains aspects of this but probably at the Matryoskha limit! https://xkcd.com/878/?utm_content=buffer10406&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer … (And there are plenty of other reasons
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @antlerboy @Meaningness and
...without going to this level of thinking. However, the big question is - why is this stuff so hard to explain and understand? The answers seem to be so close to 'mere reasonableness' and practical reasoning. When we crack it it might seem quite obvious.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I think that’s likely, too!
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.