Why would it be necessary (initially) to map onto the minutia of 1st person subjexp(SE) in order to correctly model how affect is elaborated into SE? The goal should be to create a basic conceptual model which offers testable hypothesis. Right? One step at a time.
-
-
Sorry I should have avoided the word mapping and said, The conceptual problem that I see, is translating a '3rd person' description of a brain to 1st person subjective experience. There is no such translation?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisfcarroll @SimsYStuart and
I think the Hard Problem grows out of the thought that, if we ever have a 100% accurate map of mechanisms in the brainstem and cortex, that would be a description of mechanisms, not a description of subjective experience.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes, a description of brain functionality will only be the description of the mechanisms that produce mental content, including the content that there is a self that experiences mental content.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I would sooner say just “a description of brain functionality will only be the description of the mechanisms. stop.“ The joining phrase, “that produce mental content…” presupposes that the mechanisms produce mental content.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Oh. What else produces mental content?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
If I could answer that, we could all go home :-) The point I am stuck on is, the only explanation available to current science is a material mechanism. I can't see that it can fly; and I suggest …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisfcarroll @Plinz and
I suggest there are 3 phases of matter: 1 Pile of bricks. Only panpsychists see consciousness here 2 Clockwork Mechanisms. No-one now sees consciousness here tho Chalmers' Structure & Dynamics possibly attacks it 3 Turing Machine. Here seek Dennett & most illusionists I think
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisfcarroll @Plinz and
We know of no 4th state. Neither 2 nor 3 require any subjective experience to function. A Mechanism works just fine without subjective experience. Similarly for any evolutionary story & fitness function: the mechanism & associated algorithm just work, no experience needed.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisfcarroll @Plinz and
/And/ there no vocabularly for 1st person PoV in a mechanical, 3rd person, frame. So I don't think that 1st person PoV — mental content & affect — arise from mechanism.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
The mechanistic (better: computational) frame can describe a system that is capable of performing the operations that manipulate the representational structure in exactly the right way to let the representation serve as the control model in which we experience.
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.