Watching graziano's presentation as a cautionary tale, I now agree with schurger that talking about system 2 for a while would be more productive, but it must be about "how can these small receptive fields can globally organize into a picture, how can binocular rivalry can actually dominate in there, how can all senses be 'solved' for to be in the same integrated 'world'? ". And most importantly those terms are paradoxical in their original source because certainty and probabilistic approaches are both equally fast. Probabilistic integration doesn't take longer than any other certainty seeking decision. If one feeds the other, and if the final thing is certain, it would be paradoxical to thing the thing that comes before it is slow. However they already have a name: semantic engine (system 2), syntactic engine (system 1).
38:15 brain doesn't have to choose because of a bottleneck, it hosts many alternative ways of explaining the same data at the same time to switch between those explanations when it is necessary for its probabilistic approach. The MAP wins while others stay unused and unconscious. The system 2 takes only a small part of that "system 1" because they are the winners by some global and local challenge.
32:55 then system 2 becomes feelings and concsciousness. Your "system 2" solves for certainty. Your conscious feelings are all you are aware of and only they exists, not some heavy tail of probability, only a specially equation solution that spits out its own MAP best at that moment and it paints that solution with feelings.
