Paul Thagard on cognition, consciousness, misinformation, balance | Thing in itself w/ Ashar Khan

Paul Thagard is a philosopher specializing in cognitive science, philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of science and medicine. He is professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Waterloo. He has made important contributions in understanding cognition, coherence, creativity, and the role of emotions in cognition.
0:00 intro
1:40 misinformation
10:19 look for mechanisms / natural philosophy vs introspection
20:52 why do we need philosophy
28:51 manual for dealing with misinformation
40:53 political action, technology, freedom of speech
57:04 rationality vs. logical inference
1:01:32 coherence
1:08:26 balance: from philosophy to social sciences
1:15:38 connectionism, cognition, semantic pointers architecture
1:19:42 predictive processing
1:23:13 multiple reliability
1:31:17 AI ethics
1:33:35 origin of life and language, sociality in humans
1:40:38 life in the universe and the meaning of life
1:45:14 consciousness, IIT, neural correlates, hard problem
2:01:44 embodiment and 4E cognition
2:09:57 revision of psychology, theory and therapy, spiritual practices
2:16:26 naturalism: math, ethics, aesthetics
2:23:25 Charles Sanders Peirce and advice for young people
Paul’s Website paulthagard.com/
Paul Thagard Books
Balance: How It Works and What It Means
Bots and Beasts: What Makes Machines, Animals, and People Smart?
Natural Philosophy: From Social Brains to Knowledge, Reality, Morality, and Beauty
Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
Mind-Society: From Brains to Social Sciences and Professions
The Brain and the Meaning of Life
Hot Thought: Mechanisms and Applications of Emotional Cognition
Mind: Introduction to Cognitive Science
Coherence in Thought and Action
Social
Twitter: / thinginitself__
Instagram: / thinginitself.pod
Facebook: / 100088163125850
Podcast
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0dUBLTl...
Google: www.google.com/podcasts?feed=...
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Amazon: music.amazon.ca/podcasts/9c6c...

[@vinm300]

I wish I had time to watch it all....but I'm definitely coming back for this :
1:45:14 consciousness, IIT, neural correlates, hard problem

[@Achrononmaster]

@5:00 how is Paul's framework a "mechanism"? (Define mechanism!) What I heard was a category theoretic description. Data comes first, either blackbox input or conscious qualia (depending on who or what is going to information process). Information is then a bunch of functors mapping from data to qualia (linguists call this referencing). Machines, computers, therefore have nothing to do with information. Information only has context if there is a subjective "knower", i.e., a conscious being. We all say "computers process information" but that's a little white lie. They process data (people used to comprehend the distinction, not much any more!). Shannon information has no meaning without a concept of a "probability" and that requires a conscious knower (either frequentist or Bayesian, either or). Computers have no concept of probability (at least not until they could be regarded as conscious).

[@Achrononmaster]

@12:00 he's got "anti-definitions" wrong, no? All science is story telling, what does Paul think archetypes and stereotypes are? (Objective reality? --- gimme a break!) Once you conceive of an archetype then they can _help_ craft definitions. The definitions are useful in analytic philosophy. If you do not wish to do analytic philosophy then that's fine too, but then you are only story-telling in a different way. I mean... sh*t... just _all of mathematics_ negates what Paul says against usefulness of definitions. Maybe I misconstrue what Paul is on about here? Is the notion of "definition" he employs here some abstruse academic inside game?
One is suspect of Paul's opinion for other reasons moreover. The Russian misinformation on Ukraine is part of warfare. Everyone driving a war does it. USA is no exception (Iraq. Powell. WMD.) But the brute fact is the blatant nazi history of the Azov Regiment (which no one, _no one_ disputes), and their control of several levers of power over recent Ukraine governments, is undeniable. That is fact, not fiction. Regardless of what the Dumas is putting out. This history of the Azov Regiment does not mean Putin, the Duganistas, and the Dumas were in the moral right. The UN could have invoked the Chapter VII Articles and Montevideo Convention to grant the Donbas independence, which would have cock-blocked Putin and avoided untold bloodshed.