I'm not sure what you mean when you say somebody would need to watch over the editor or the curator? I'm talking about different cognitive functions here, they just do their thing no supervisor is needed. That said, there may be additional layers of metacognition in humans. I'm not claiming that there is exactly two layers. It could well…
I'm not sure what you mean when you say somebody would need to watch over the editor or the curator? I'm talking about different cognitive functions here, they just do their thing no supervisor is needed. That said, there may be additional layers of metacognition in humans. I'm not claiming that there is exactly two layers. It could well be that there are cognitive functions that monitor and fine tune are basic thought editor. I'm not a cognitive scientist, but I have read a lot of it and this sounds like the sort of thing they talk about.
It seems to me your use of the term homunculus here is entirely rhetorical. You could say that about any theory which posits distinct cognitive modules that do stuff, which is pretty much all of modern cognitive science.
I'm arguing that you're invoking a Cartesian theatre explanation for human consciousness. I'm not a fan of such dualism, preferring emergent theories. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument for more details of the fallacy you're trying to use.
Nope. The real world (whatever that might mean) doesn't exist inside our heads. These purely subjective observations are only evidence for the brain being a hallucination/simulation generating machine, from which our consciousness arises as the 'best fit' to the current sensory inputs.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say somebody would need to watch over the editor or the curator? I'm talking about different cognitive functions here, they just do their thing no supervisor is needed. That said, there may be additional layers of metacognition in humans. I'm not claiming that there is exactly two layers. It could well be that there are cognitive functions that monitor and fine tune are basic thought editor. I'm not a cognitive scientist, but I have read a lot of it and this sounds like the sort of thing they talk about.
It seems to me your use of the term homunculus here is entirely rhetorical. You could say that about any theory which posits distinct cognitive modules that do stuff, which is pretty much all of modern cognitive science.
I'm arguing that you're invoking a Cartesian theatre explanation for human consciousness. I'm not a fan of such dualism, preferring emergent theories. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument for more details of the fallacy you're trying to use.
Intrusive thoughts and schizophrenia are good evidence something like Avi is describing is actually happening.
Nope. The real world (whatever that might mean) doesn't exist inside our heads. These purely subjective observations are only evidence for the brain being a hallucination/simulation generating machine, from which our consciousness arises as the 'best fit' to the current sensory inputs.