The conceptual problem that I see, is mapping a '3rd person' description of a brain to 1st person subjective experience. There is no such mapping?
-
-
I don’t think that the functional implementation of the mind and the conscious self exist in the same frame of reference. From the perspective of the self, phenomenal experience is primary, outside of it, there is no experience. The self is a story, the mind a story generator.
3 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
Is “self is a story, mind a story generator” a description of the self from the functional (can I say 3rd person?) frame? Or does it aim to bridge gap between the frames? Is 'story' a special smthg that seems to make sense in both frames of reference no translation needed?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The story generator description exists within the mind as well and is not part of the ground truth, but it is a mathematical concept that does not require experience, and can be functionally realized. The experienced self is not real.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @chrisfcarroll and
Correct. However there are *experiences* (ways of ongoing perceptions) beyond concepts, constructs, words, models and thus communication. Kinda sucks for science but it is what it is. Truth decides, not man (in his commonly construed form). "Hard Problem" = facing wrong direction
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @davidarredondo @Plinz and
I don't go for "self is a story": –Stories don't have subjective experience. Having subjective experiences is core to a self. A Story can't /be/ It –“Story” is emotionally loaded metaphor. Strip the metaphor. As a functional artifact, it's just an Audit Trail
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @chrisfcarroll @davidarredondo and
I think the point being made here is that from a practical perspective, the nuances of SE, these “stories” created by the cortex, are far less relevant to CS than is phenomenal experience. We can’t easily apply the scientific method to nuanced cortical artifacts (SE). No utility.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @SimsYStuart @davidarredondo and
(I mostly take CS to mean computer science? You mean Cognitive Science or ... ?)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @SimsYStuart @davidarredondo and
Eek. I grow old. I didn't realise there was a field. Showing off my ignorance, I take a guess that it's currently a post-grad/research only field that overlaps with psychology & neuroscience and is not the same as cognitive science?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I suspect that the philosophy presently done in cognitive science (especially at the boundary between AI and neuroscience) is probably not going to leave future generations in awe.
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.