"Information" is a handy term for talking about causal dynamics. Bonkity bonkity bonk. Billiard balls. Calling a clump a "model", "self model", or some bonking "monitoring" won't make red red.
-
-
Replying to @JohnRGregg3 @keithfrankish and
Information is only meaningful relative to some encoding scheme. The problem for phil of mind is that the information internal to an agent (semantic content of its mind) is distinct from the information embodied by the third person physical model we use to talk about them.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @crabby_smales @JohnRGregg3 and
Furthermore, it should only be thought of as a 'handy term', but in 3rd person 'physical' model is usually spoken of literally as information. Strangely attributing subjective motivations & behaviours to matter. Forgetting that it's only meaningful as 'information' to *someone*.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AshokZaman @JohnRGregg3 and
Yep yep yep. I feel like physicalists of various stripes (unintentionally!) smuggle in the mental when they use terms like: represent, model, information. Modelling is clearly a relation that of imputation of properties by intelligent systems, such as ourselves...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AtaraxJim @AshokZaman and
Edge-detectors don't "model" or "represent" in the sense that they don't impute any properties, they are simply causally-sensitive to certain types of stimuli. And the same goes for higher-level systems that use their states as input. If we are going to banish the mental from...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AtaraxJim @AshokZaman and
The brain, then we have to bite that bullet and accept that the brain doesn't (at least at the level of its subcomponents) have representations. It's just [light > retina > *click whirrr buzz* > swerve to avoid hitting deer]
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AtaraxJim @AshokZaman and
And my suspicion is that this profligate and unacknowledged use of the intentional stance re: brain processes is what makes a view like illusionism seem plausible.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AtaraxJim @AshokZaman and
Can you point to a physicalist who has ever denied the existence of the mental?! It sounds like you are going after a straw village with a torch...
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @NeuroYogacara @AtaraxJim and
This is too deep in the Buddhist game, but what’s wrong with saying that luminosity is a direct awareness of the interactions between neurobiological processes and contacting events...acknowledging that neither has the character that it does independently of the interaction
4 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @NeuroYogacara @AshokZaman and
Mhmm, luminosity-talk is tricky on purely Buddhist terms. Rangtong-Shengtong stuff. I think I see what you're pointing to though.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
Might be relevant to the discussion: Lindahl, J. R., Kaplan, C. T., Winget, E. M., & Britton, W. B. (2014). A phenomenology of meditation-induced light experiences: Traditional Buddhist and neurobiological perspectives. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 973.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00973/full …
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.