What is the difference between introspecting and directly experiencing? Do you think it’s possible to see/hear/smell/taste/feel without introspecting? Is it possible to think without introspecting? If not, why not?
-
-
Replying to @NeuroYogacara @keithfrankish
The reason that i'm asking,
@keithfrankish, is that I'm a bit worried that you are accidentally smuggling in a Cartesian theater. As you know, I think that metacognitive monitoring plays a huge role in experience. But I worry about claiming that it's *always* going on2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @NeuroYogacara
No, I don't think it's always going on. I'm totally with DCD (no definitive stream, need-to-know basis, probes, fridge light, etc). In fact, I'd say that meta monitoring plays no role in experience itself, but only in our *sense* of experience (for a suitable def of experience)
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @keithfrankish
I think that I get what you're saying. And I think I agree. But I wonder what you think experience is like independently of the *sense* of experience. I struggle to know what to say about this; and I think it's one of the sticking points for people who back away from illusionism
4 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @NeuroYogacara
It's like what things are like when we're not perceiving them. All the features are present that make us describe them in the way we do, but we're not currently aware of them and responding to them.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @keithfrankish
I am not sure how you can say that without positing a place where all conscious experience comes together. I think that you've just conflated experience and the sense of experience, and that seems really wrong to me! But I'm sure that I'm missing something
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @NeuroYogacara
I didn't mean to! A bit more carefully but still very roughly: there's a highly complex perceptual-reactive state that would evoke all sorts of different w-i-l descriptions in response to probes. There's no canonical aspect of that state awaiting description as the w-i-l aspect.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @keithfrankish
That I like! But the hard question is can you break that complexity down, isolate the different channels, and become aware of how each one of them is generating the kinds of representations that it is generating? I think that you can, but it requires a lot of training!
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @NeuroYogacara
I'd guess so, within certain limits. But I doubt if you could do it without messing with the first-order processes themselves, boosting some representations and suppressing others, so you'd be shaping the reality you're exploring
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @keithfrankish
That's all we can ever do. The myth that many analytic philosophers commonly accept is that there is a reality that exists beyond the reality that we enact...(
@evantthompson, I think I may have finally drank the Kool-aid)pic.twitter.com/2hWAQJ05ym2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes
Tastes good, doesn't it?
-
-
Mmmmm delicious
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.