The research for my podcast episodes is intense. If you enjoy my high effort philosophy and theology podcast episodes, consider supporting me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees or become a RU-vid member by clicking the "Join" button for the similar perks.
For Josh: 1. Checkout Functional fixedness in psychology - my thought is that an object can have many purposes, but there is a probabilistic threshold on what actions it could perform (via an agent in this example) - relating to the access of things, states, and thoughts. 2. Check out self-receptors in neurobiology - my thought is that there may be principles that maintain or govern patterns, and laws that set order to harmonic patterns and their states. 3. Just a thought: it makes sense to me to think of patterns as along a vector, especially given the experience of linear time, which then would make sense to differentiate patterns from each other - even if their patterns were identical, that would only apply in a snapshot of time - they wouldn’t be numerically identical because their vectors would have different trajectories or momentum.
1:06:30 I would guess that they have the same temporal Identity but are not identical in existence. Similar to how a stature is identical in existence with its material but still has a different temporal identity then the material since the material would still continue to be even if the stature turns into dust. There seems to be a difference in existence and in that what is conserved over time.
I do question the idea that the first person conscious experience is something outside 'the function'. Traditionally functions are seen as reproducing third person data gathered in psychology experiments (which is what AI and computational models tend to do) but It is overlooked that the third person data covaries with the first person experience so the first person experience isn't something outside the "function" in functionalism.
[UK, July 2023] Sometimes - if you exit your current paradigm, & enter a different one - you can find yourself in a place where 𝘢𝘭𝘭 of the questions around Consciousness fully resolve, & no more repeated & inevitable instances of chasing one's tail. AI has as little to do with Consciousness as the human brain does - given premises like the one examined in this interview - that the brain 'creates' or causes Consciousness somehow. It doesn't. I'm with Nikola Tesla & others. Consciousness is the very fabric of the Universe. And our brains are receivers. If you want to focus on the brain - at least know that all you're examining is the radio, not the transmission. This is also why a mere network of connections isn't all there is to functioning as a receiver - which is why AI (a mass of transistors) - isn't necessarily going to have anything to do with the study of Consciousness. It could actually be a complete red herring. I love this channel for the efforts its going to to study all of this.
@@ParkersPensees Ah - I blame my listening to this sometimes in the background, for not picking up on that. 👍🏽👍🏽 I'm further along the video now as well - am indeed seeing it treated. It's a compliment to the quality & substance of your content sir - that folk are compelled immediately to add in comments!
Brains as receivers of transmissions? I really, really like this idea. However, I’m not satisfied with the universe as a transmitter. People have all kinds of wild and irrational and questionable thoughts and feelings and it’s too easy to say they just”heard” it from the universe. What if instead I said that the universe-and every thing and every one in it-exhibits a principle of animation? That that world you are a flesh and blood part of is animated by something, some force, some intelligence, some power of aliveness? That you are already a part of it and you can choose to either honor that connection or debase it but nonetheless you are ALIVE and you start there? It could be that yes, our consciousness is an antenna that receives awareness. An awareness that we are LIVING and HERE?
The idea that mind exists outside the brain and the brain is a tool to access the mind is problematic because brain contains cells that communicate to each other, and regions that communicate to each other, not communicating to something external. Also conscious experience is a constructive process, starting with simplest form that becomes more and more complex at later stages. Not an 'all or nothing' single thing. Evidence indicates that conscious experience is constructed inside the brain.
Completely totally wrong. Saying the brain contains thought is like saying the heart contains love. Not sure you’ve ever seen an open heart surgery, but so far as I can tell you do not see love.
@@thesarnosphere7034 love is a complex emotion that results from interaction between brain, endocrine system, and other organs (including heart). Love doesn't involve heart only.
@@thesarnosphere7034 moreover, about the strangest thing I heard from philosophers is “if brain produces thoughts, why can’t you see thoughts by looking at neurons firing” Who are neurons communicating to by firing? Each other, and the whole of the nervous system they belong to. Who are they NOT communicating to by firing? YOU (your nervous system) So why would you see thoughts when you don’t have access to the information the neurons are carrying, by looking at them?
