There are many such possible concepts, but these are not the concepts standardly expressed by the expression "pc", nor the concepts reached by standard definitions of pc. Of course we can DECIDE that "pc" expresses one of these concepts but I argue that we should not (last section) - ThreadSky

lovingautomaton.bsky.social • 8 days ago

There are many such possible concepts, but these are not the concepts standardly expressed by the expression "pc", nor the concepts reached by standard definitions of pc. Of course we can DECIDE that "pc" expresses one of these concepts but I argue that we should not (last section)

Comments

johanneskleiner.bsky.social•4 days ago

Finally finished the paper. 😊 Congrats again!

Returning to my question above: In the paper you only mention Eric's def and what you call D and E. Are there others you would endorse?

(Not trying to object, just to learn 😉 - as much depends on this in general!)

lovingautomaton.bsky.social•3 days ago

So, D: the concept of whatever property is actually possessed by the positive examples and lacked by the negative examples (or, alternatively, of the most salient natural kind property possessed by the positive examples and lacked by the negative examples)...

lovingautomaton.bsky.social•3 days ago

and E: the concept of whatever property causes activations of C (or, alternatively, of the most salient natural kind property causing activations of C)....

lovingautomaton.bsky.social•3 days ago

Now, We could then imagine variations where we add the requirement that some aspect of the folk-psychological characterizations borne by C is satisfied...

lovingautomaton.bsky.social•3 days ago

Like F: the concept of the most salient natural kind property which causes activations of C and is as close as possible to being known in a revelatory way (e.g., such that instantiations of F no causing activations of C are as rare as possible).

lovingautomaton.bsky.social•3 days ago

I suppose there are lots of other concepts in the vicinity that one migh choose to work witth when doing consciousness science, which are NOT concepts of pc in my view, and about which we can be realists while being eliminativists about pc

johanneskleiner.bsky.social•8 days ago

Thanks! I've been curious for a while about what this 👇 statement would mean in terms of a formal theory of consciousness. Is it correct to think that there would still be an explanandum variable/structure corresponding to a meaningful p.c. concept, but the theory would have a different formal ...

johanneskleiner.bsky.social•8 days ago

...structure that represents a different explanatory strategy (that of explaining illusions)? If yes, do you have a pointer or example of what this structure might be, e.g. in other disciplines? (Trying to understand what the difference to realist theories would be as far as formalism is concerned.)

lovingautomaton.bsky.social•8 days ago

Hm I suppose a lot will depends on various other assumptions, but there is little reason to think the illusion has the same structure as the illusory thing. Eg some think pc involve some primitive ppties, but there is little reason to think the illusion itself involves corresponding primitives..

lovingautomaton.bsky.social•8 days ago

And I suppose this difference would correspond to a structural difference in the explananda and it would matter from the pov of formalism? Is that the sort of considerations you have in mind?

johanneskleiner.bsky.social•5 days ago

Yes! Though my hunch was that while the metaphysics differ, the structure of the scientific representation of the explanandum used in a theory is the same. E.g. while the illusion doesn't involve pp, it involves some mother properties that instantiate the same structure as pps. Could this be?

lovingautomaton.bsky.social•5 days ago

To be frank I do not see why. Is it because a general principle that representations of structural properties must instantiate this structure? This seems false to me. I can think of representations of primitive p thay are not promitive. And the principle would preclude us to ever think..

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply